What does the 7th amendment of the bill of rights mean?
549481
It means one person doesn't decide your fate.  You get a jury of people who represent a cross-section of society, and after hearing evidence from both sides, they jury decides if the person on trial is guilty or not.
167434
Questions like or similar to this one have appeared here several times.  Other than those who ask such questions to simply get a response to see what others think, often they come up (in my opinion) because the asker (present company excepted, of course) due to a lack of education as to what the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights actually are and mean.\n\nFirst of all, the Constitution of the United States was created to create a general government (in this case a federal government) and the relationship between that general government and the ratifying States and their citizens, as ratified by the several States as representing the citizens of each of their States.   \n\nIt is not a document of laws nor does it grant any rights.  It is a structure which acts as a foundation from which laws are to be enacted which are necessary (and proper) to carry through the powers delegated to the federal government created by those delegated powers.\n\nThe Bill of Rights is the result of an agreement made during the Constitutional Convention to gather the votes necessary to propose the draft of the Constitution to the then standing Congress under the Articles of Confederation.  It first came up (by George Mason) during the discussion concerning trial by jury.  \n\nAt that time 8 of the 13 State Constitutions (the States had real Constitutions prior to the Constitution of the United States) had forms of a Bill of Rights and George Mason had written Virginia’s in 1776.\n\nSubsequent to the ratification of the Constitution of the United States and during the first session of the Congress, James Madison was given the task of drafting this Bill of Rights and in this effort he used the Virginia Bill of Rights as a guide.  His work resulted in a Bill of Rights with 12 articles being proposed to the several State legislatures.  Only 10 were ratified at that time.\n\nBills of Rights are not new to our historical roots, certainly Magna Carta can be considered a form of a Bill of Rights and there were others through the years such as “The Petition of Right [1628] and “The Bill of rights” [1689].\n\nEven so, the United States Bill of Rights is less a listing of individual rights than it is selected controls on the federal government.  This is because of the structure of the Bill of rights, that is, the first 8 ratified articles of the Bill of Rights are exclusionary articles in that they exclude the federal government from doing specific acts.  The final two articles are declarations of basic truths and are therefore controlling of the federal government.\n\nAll of this structure of government can reasonably be considered as being a natural evolution of our heritage of the Common Law easily traceable to the Great Charter of 1215 (Magna Carta) and, in my opinion, founded in the developing Common Law during the preceding 2,000 years.\n\nDuring the intervening years since 1791 (year of the ratification of the Bill of Rights) 27 Amendments have been made to the Constitution of the United States changing that structure.\n\nLegislative statutes are enacted within this structure and the constitutional structures of the various States.  Those enacted laws, in the style of our common law, evolve and produce new laws, as well as new judicial interpretations.  In that sense we do, and yet we don’t, live within what occurred 215 years ago.  \n\nIn such a system, how can it be out of date?  It has lasted so long with relatively little change because its roots and its intent and its content are focused on individual rights.
452945
The bill of rights defines the powers granted to the goverment when conducting criminal investigations (4,5,6,7).  It also defines the rights that citizens have that cannot be impeached upon by laws created at any level of government.
10511
Its called the bill of rights and they apply to everyone.
378419
Read the US Constitution.  Pay particular attention to the first 10 amendments.  They are known, collectively, as the Bill of Rights.  The additional amendments spell out a few more.
139068
The firs amendment is part of the bill of rights, which was ratified in 1791.  It protects the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to petition, etc.  The followinig sources are great for learning about the first amendment...\n\nAlso, check out this blurb.\n\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.
291958
no the bill of rights is just a document declaring our independance from england and our god given rights as citzens. If anything the immigration bill would go on the constitution if need be!
405104
Every other amendment in the bill of rights regards individual rights.  Why would this one be any different!
478042
Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823\n\nAnd it means that people should not try to find every loophole available in the original meaning behind the Consititution. They should just remember what the principles it was based on represented and conform to that.
453707
Not real sure what you want?\n\nTry looking at The United States Bill Of Rights.\n\nFree - speech, religion, right to trial, right of privacy, right to own property, 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.).
959626
It guards against the "tyranny of the majority."\n\nIn other words, it specifies *limits* on what a government can do ... even a democratically elected government.  It recognizes that the majority is NOT always right.  That the majority of people in a population may support a law, and the majority of representatives may vote to pass a law, when that law is oppressive to a minority of individuals.\n\nIt gives an individual the basis on which to challenge an unjust act (such as an arrest, or the passage of a law) by the government.  If prosecuted and convicted by the government, the individual can appeal to the Supreme Court that the law itself violates the Constitution ... the Bill of Rights describes on what basis the constitutionality of the law can be challenged.
989882
There are 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The first ten are known as the Bill of Rights. The last one was added in 1992
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.
605250
THe Bill of Rights:\n\n1st Freedoms of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly\n2nd Right to bear arms\n3rd Quartering soldiers in private homes\n4th Searches and seizures; warrants\n5th Procedural rights\n6th Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions\n7th Right to trial by jury in civil cases\n8th Excessive bail & fines; cruel & unusual punishment\n9th Unenumerated rights retained by the people\n10th Powers reserved to the states or to the people
713207
For a technical historical answer, contact Jon Roland of the Constitution Society http://www.constitution.org\n\nTraditionally, the Bill of Rights defines specific rights of citizens that were not spelled out in the Constitution, in an attempt to reinforce these as reserved to the people where government could not infringe: (1) free exercise of religion, freedom of speech or of the press, right to peaceably assemble and to petition the government (2) right to bear arms with respect to militia (3) freedom from quartering of soldiers (4) right to security and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures (5) freedom from self-incrimination (6 and 7) right to speedy public trial, legal defense and other due process procedures, and right to trial by jury and freedom from double jeopardy (8) freedom from cruel or unusual punishment or excessive fines or bails (9 and 10) protection of rights regardless of enumeration and reservation of rights to States or the people not otherwise delegated or prohibited under the Constitution.\n\nHowever, if the existence of these laws in writing were enough to reinforce equal checks and balances, there would not have been a need to add the Fourteenth Amendment about "equal protection under the law." I find this concept of "equal protection" necessary to apply the Bill of Rights fairly to respect the consent of all the governed parties, instead of favoring some interests over others in violation of the Code of Ethics for Government Service (see Public Law 96-303, 1980).\n\nIn practice, I find that only the educated practice and agreed enforcement of Constitutional rights guarantees these to anyone. The First Amendment especially reflects natural laws that govern all humanity -- every human being desires free exercise to act, free speech and press to communicate, and the right peaceably to assemble and to petition as part of due process. Collectively, our individual rights become the three functions of government -- from establishing and interpreting laws and contracts by written and spoken word, to exercising individual freedom and authority, and assembling in protest or petition to represent and defend our interests whether in courts or Congress, or school, churches or other institutions.\n\nAs individuals learn to balance our natural rights with those of others, and between the level of the individual to the collective level of government, that is when we will realize the checks and balances intended between the three branches of government, as well as the levels of government of local, state, and federal. \n\nhttp://www.houstonprogressive.org/isocracy.html
914342
First Amendment of the Constitution\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\nThe Amendment was meant to protect all citizens from censorship, particularly when criticizing the government.\n\nHowever, the Bush Administration attempted to violate these rights during anti-war protests but when thousands of activists were brought to court on charges of raising their voices up against the war, the judges had to overturn the charges citing the first Amendment.\n\nThe Bush Administration keeps many civil liberties attorneys quite busy protecting the rights of citizens.\n\nThe Constitution was being dismantled by the Bush piece by piece as he instituted amendments against many basic rights. Voting people feared these rights were being lost forever so they voted the Republicans out in large numbers during the last election.