6th amendment Rights?
92357
Please don't be offended, and perhaps it's just the way you write, but you clearly don't have the facts of this situation correctly.  What you are claiming happened here is (assuming I can understand it), really very difficult to believe.  \n\nLet's do this:\n\nIf your friend, who was convicted of whatever it was, was represented by an attorney in any court in this country, I would strongly suspect his 6th amendment rights were not violated and if they were, his attorney would almost certainly be filing an appeal as we speak.\n\nOtherwise, you probably need someone to help you with your question because it's nearly impossible to understand.
926888
Read the 4th, 5th, and 6th articles of the Constitution. One of them has the answer.
579119
The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution.
1073901
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;\n\nThe right of the people to be secure in thier persons, house, 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.\n\nThats how it reads, however it has been left to interpretation by any number of authorities. In my interpretation probable cause was required to obtain a warrant in order to search , not cause for search.......\n\nHowever there have been so many other changes to our Constitution that the original bill of rights is mostly just a memory, and has been used and abused by the crooked, the greedy and the power hungry for too long\n\nVOTE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION....\nso that "We the People" can retake our country and reinstate our freedoms\n\nPeace to all...now more than ever...
299809
YES and Yes. Basically you have rights accorded to by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.....unles they may offend someone.  \n\nI still can't get used to the fairytale, The Pigment Challenged Womyn and the 7 Height Challenged Men.
254883
You can plead the 5th only when it is a matter that may incriminate you!\n\nThe 5th Amendment states that you have the right to not incriminate yourself!
562800
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure. \nThe 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. \n\nFifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property. \nNo 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. \n\nSixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused. \nIn 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.\n\nSeventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury. \nIn 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 reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. \nEighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel or unusual punishment. \nExcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. \n\nThese are all considered "criminal ammendments".\n\nRegards,\n\nArmus
1131659
The correct answer is the Bill of Rights.\n\nThe cruel and unusual punishment is in the 8th Amendment, the others are in the 5th.
233362
You absolutely have that right. It is protected by the bill of rights -- right of assembly and free speech.
104707
So what is your point, States have some rights.
573914
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.\n\nThe Fourth Amendment was intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as against unreasonable searches was early assumed by Chief Justice Marshall 55 and is now established law.
715944
it's not, \n\nIf the ACLU or some real constitutional lawers would step up to the plate and challange it, we could get somewhere.  \n\nand for the guy who said we don't have a right to privacy, how about you read the bill of rights.  \n\n"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."\n\nso "sneek and peek" wouldn't exactly be constitutional.
753255
amendments,  \n\nfrom congress and or the supreme court
473500
the 9th amendment protects ALL other rights that aren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights. the people of the US aren't limited to JUST those rights, and all their other rights must be upheld in the court of law\n\nthat article explains it very well!
162325
As noted in his book, “The Rights Retained Retained by the People,” by Professor Barnett, Ninth Amendment analysis has proceeded in three stages . . . . . . \n\nThe first stage lasted until 1965 and during this period there were only the most glancing judicial and scholarly references to the ninth amendment, with no explicit construction of the amendment by the Supreme Court in the seven cases that represent the sum total of the Court’s pronouncements on the amendment prior to 1965.\nRoth v. United States [1957]\nWoods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. [1948]\nUnited States Pub. Workers v. Mitchell [1947]\nTennessee Elec. Power Co. v. TVA [1939]\nAshwander v. TVA [1936]\nScott v. Sandford [1857]\nLessee of Livingston v. Moore [1833]\n\nThe second stage began in the Griswold v. Connecticut [1965] the court held unconstitutional Connecticut statutes that criminalized the use of, or assistance in the use of, contraceptives.  While Justice Douglas wrote that the statutes violated the right of marital privacy created by the prenumbral rights emanating from the specific guarantees in the first, third, fourth, fifth, and ninth Amendments, it was Justice Goldberg’s concurring, joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan, that catapulted the ninth into sudden respectability.  Justice Gold berg concluded that the right to marital privacy, although not expressly listed in the Constitution, is nonetheless protected by the Ninth Amendment.  \n\n(Note from Randy – In my opinion his most significant statement was, “The language and history of the Ninth Amendment, reveal that the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the first eight constitutional amendments.”  I can just visualize the Founders hooraying Justice Goldberg.)\n\nThis case acted as the foundation for the court to further define privacy by alluding to the ninth amendment but not explaining precisely what unenumerated rights the ninth amendment might include in the cases of . . . . . \nPlanned Parenthood v. Danforth [1976]\nBuckley v. Valeo [1976]\nLubin v. Panish [1974]\n\nThe waning of the Warren court saw the beginning of the third stage and began invoking the ninth amendment to justify an expansive reading of individual rights.  Justice Black opined that the ninth amendment is a “fountain of law.”  Justice Ely “it is intended to signal the existence  of federal constitutional rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.”\n\nProfessor Barnett goes on to state, “The central question in ninth amendment interpretation has been the existence and extent of the federal rights the amendment is suppose to encompass.  The historical evidence , however, suggests that the ninth amendment is not a cornucopia.\n\n(Randy note: this becomes quite lengthy from here on so I will only mention that the focus here (Justices Black and Ely) is on the rights listed in the first 8 articles of the Bill of Rights as they are interpreted by the court as being encompassed within the 14th amendment and not rights as may be evolved from the ninth amendment.  The is a multitude of scholarly works, both pro and con, on this perspective.  I believe that it is fair to say that this is far from finality.)
429804
The rights of the criminally accused can be found in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th amendments. What happened in Miranda v. Arizona was that Miranda was arrested for raping and beating a girl. He was not informed of his right to council or right to remain silent. He ended up confessing to this crime after two hours of "interrogation" without an attorney. Miranda was innocent of the crime but he was unaware that he didn't have to confess. The Supreme Court ruled that officers must read a person their rights when they are under arrest or if they are being charged with a crime.
975250
the first ten ammendments of the constitution...basically mean this:\n\n1. freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly\n\n2. right to own firearms\n\n3. a soldier must have permission from a houses owner to stay there\n\n4. rights against illegal search and siezure\n\n5. basically you can't be tried twice for the same crime and due process of prosecution \n\n6. more rights on due process...speedy trial and right to counsel\n\n7. right of trial by jury...interesting note...it says anything over $20.00...\n\n8. no excessive bail or cruel or unusual punishment\n\n9. basically you can't use the constitution against people..\n\n10. this ammendment seems to give power to individual states to govern themselves of things not in the constitution to wit..\n\nHeres the whole Bill Of Rights:\n\nTHE BILL OF RIGHTS\nAmendments 1-10 of the Constitution\n\n--------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nThe Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution; \n\nResolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely: \n\n\nAmendment I\nCongress 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. \n\n\nAmendment II\nA 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. \n\n\nAmendment III\nNo 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. \n\n\nAmendment IV\nThe 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. \n\n\nAmendment V\nNo 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. \n\n\nAmendment VI\nIn 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. \n\n\nAmendment VII\nIn suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury s