U.S. Users: Without checking, how many of the five rights guaranteed in the First Amendment can you name?
437536
freedom of press,speech, assemble, religion, and shoot, I believe petition the gov't
237658
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees, among other things, freedom of speech, but this right is not absolute.  Certain types of speech are not protected by the Constitution, which means that State goverments may promulgate laws to limit them.  Examples include "fighting words" (words meant to provoke a physical fight), "commercial speech" (claims made in advertising), "obscenity" (prurient language), etc.
309636
1. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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 . . . . U.S. CONST. amend. VI.\n\n2. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . . U.S. CONST. amend. I.\n\n3. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI.\n\n4. See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 565 (1980).\n\n5. See id. at 565-75.\n\n6. See id.\n\n7. Id. at 571.\n\n8. The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were aware of the potential clash between the First and Sixth Amendments. See Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 547 (1976) ("[I]t is inconceivable that the authors of the Constitution were unaware of the potential conflicts between the right to an unbiased jury and the guarantee of freedom of the press.).
296987
Women can vote...that's the only one that mattered ;) haha\n\n\nThe Constitution has a total of 27 amendments. Here you go--you asked ;)\n\nFirst Amendment\n\nThe First Amendment addresses the rights of freedom of speech and the press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right of petition. It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting the establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion.\n[edit]\n\nSecond Amendment\n\n    main article: Second Amendment\n\nThe Second Amendment states, in its entirety, "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." Compared to other amendments, there is little case law about the Second Amendment.\n[edit]\n\nThird Amendment\n\nThe Third Amendment prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers without the consent of the owners. Much as the Second Amendment, there is largely no case law. There has been no Supreme Court case law, and only one odd case, Engblom v. Carey, which has even addressed the Third Amendment.[2]\n[edit]\n\nFourth Amendment\n\nThe Fourth Amendment guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. A general right to privacy has been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court (See Griswold v. Connecticut), including a right to medical abortion.\n[edit]\n\nFifth through Eighth Amendments\n\nThe next four amendments deal with the system of justice. The fifth forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits repeated trials for the same offense after an acquittal (except in certain very limited circumstances); forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Taking the fifth" or "Pleading the fifth"). This is regarded as the "rights of the accused" amendment. The sixth guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury (of peers), guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. The seventh assures trial by jury in civil cases involving anything valued at more than 20 United States dollars at the time, which is currently worth $300 presently, when accounting for inflation. The eighth forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth and sixth amendments were to be read to all persons placed under arrest, and as a result these two amendments have become known as the Miranda warning or Miranda rights.\n[edit]\n\nNinth and Tenth Amendments\n\nThe last two of the first ten amendments contain very broad statements of constitutional authority.\n\nThe Ninth Amendment declares that the listing of individual rights in the Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; that the people have other unenumerated rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The right of privacy has been interpreted as one of these unenumerated rights by many people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms (the protection of which right the Second Amendment prohibits infringement) is also often interpreted as another of these unenumerated rights by many people. [3] Other, pre-existing, non-enumerated rights, besides just these two, continue to exist because of the Ninth Amendment. There is little case law.\n\nThe Tenth Amendment provides that powers the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from having are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The phrase "or to the people", somewhat puzzling as to its applicabil
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!
36717
The Bill 'of' Rights are the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution.
547999
The fifth amendment just gives you the right not to respond to questioning that will prove you guilty in a court of law.  This applies during an arrest or after or if you are a suspect in a case or during a trial.  If you testify during a trial than you wave your fifth amendment right and can be cross examned by the prosocutor.
1046499
Why do you want to know? The ACLU will not provide you with a list of its membership but you can start your own. My name is Bill Fields and I'll gladly be number one on your list. We strongly believe in protecting your constitutional rights.
301487
The Constitution does not mention abortion. It does, however, guarantee you the right to privacy.
123126
Americans are protected against "unreasonable search and seizure" by the 4th admendment.\n\nThe Bill of Rights tells congress what types of laws it can NOT make.
125455
No... Why? First Amendment rights. Freedom of speech.
1122178
None in reality.!!\n\nWhy! Black Gold!!\n\n\n"We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator."\nSource: The New York Times, "Reporter's Notebook; Skipping Borders, Tripping Diction," David E. Sanger, May 28, 2002 \n\n\nI told you he never read it!
652993
freedom of speech\nfreedom of religion\nfreedom of press\nfreedom of assembly\nright to petition
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.)
229692
Well, theoretically, no.  The 1st amendment of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech, but the Supreme Court has long recognized certain types of words are not protected by the first amendment, including fighting words and obscene photography.
1006531
Whether you believe we need it or not, the Preamble and the Bill of Rights, which the Founding Fathers found so important they called them the Rights Which We Hold True. The Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) are not to be changed, and can not be changed, by law. If we were to give in, change them because we no longer think it is valid, how soon until the right to free speech, the press, freedom from quartering, search and seizure, the right vote, all become obsolete in someone's opinion, and removed.\n\nNo, need it or not, it must stand, because it is part of what we stand for, as a nation, from day one.
38670
Yes!\n\nThe US Constitution does not specifically say the word "privacy" but the 9th Amendment clearly states that just because a right is not specifically enumerated doesn't mean it isn't protected.\n\nOther enumerated rights (such as in the 5th and 14th) create rights of privacy. Unless the government has a compelling interest, they can't get into the private liberties of individual citizens. Now, exactly which interests are compelling and which areas of life are private are open to judicial debate.