What does "estate of descendant" "Right of Privacy" "Voluntary Act" "Public Trial" and "Reasonable Bail" mean?
537812
the answers you seek are located in your notes from the last six weeks work you did. \n\nNOT!! kinda late to try and get a leg up on your homework isn't it. Have fun in summer school!!!!!!
592
two words:\n\nreal estate\n\nIf you want a more advanced explanation of how, email me.
112511
The 5th amendment is the right to remain silent. So when someone pleads the fifth, that are acting on that right. Now, it is often used as slang too, when someone does not want to talk about something, but it is used on court cases so you do not have to incriminate yourself.
934964
Amendment VIII (the Eighth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. The phrases employed are taken from the English Bill of Rights.
235565
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."\n\nBasically, what this means is that judges can't impose ridiculous amounts of bail for a relatively minor crime, and that punishment be humane. Of course, "humane" is a very subjective word, and there's still debate going on about the cruelty of certain punishments (death penalty, or mandated abstinence, for example). Also, the Supreme Court ruled that torture, taking away citizenship, and (!) disembowelment are all unconstitutional b/c of this amendment.
984580
Yes, you can take legal action for all of the above cases, but whether it is worth the time and effort rest in your hands. Btw, the media cannot release information relevant to a current trial or a case waiting for trial if the information released contains confidential evidences or information, such as the place of residence or name of witnesses who does not wish to be revealed.
277485
Amendment VIII (the Eighth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. \n\nExcessive Bail - the Eighth Amendment has been interpreted to mean that bail may be denied where the charges are sufficiently serious. The Supreme Court has also permitted "preventive" detention without bail.\n\nExcessive Fines - The protection against excessive fines applies only with respect to the government. Punitive damages awarded in civil trials are not governed by the clause, as the Supreme Court held in Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989). The Supreme Court has held that the wealth of the defendant need not be considered when deciding the excessiveness of a fine; neither has the Court ever explicitly set a maximum figure for fines.\n\nCruel AND Unusual Punishment - The use of the word and (instead of or) has been held to have some significance. Cruel punishments are allowable as long as more than one court system applies the punishment. Similarly, unusual punishments are permitted so long as they are not cruel, although some lawyers would argue that any unusual punishment is cruel.\n\nThe Eighth Amendment forbids some punishments entirely, and forbids some punishments that are excessive when compared to the crime.\n\nIn Furman v. Georgia (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'."\n\nThe "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity", especially torture. \n"A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion". \n"A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society". \n"A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary". \nContinuing, he wrote that he expected that no state would pass a law obviously violating any one of these principles, so court decisions regarding the Eighth Amendment would involve a "cumulative" analysis of the implication of each of the four principles.
923306
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - '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.'\nprobably not. it all depends on the skill of the prosecutor, and the strength of their evidence. if it's a constitutional issue (which 4th amendment is) you'll need to hire a separate constitutional lawyer (believe it or not, hillary clinton is one of the best!) to address the constitutionality of the point in case. any more ?'s, just ask. "i ain't passed the bar but i know a little bit.....enough that you won't illegally search my shit."  - jay z
1090487
It's shameful that we would need an amendment to remind the SCOTUS that the Forth Amendment means what the words say it means, the probable cause means probable cause and not reasonable suspicion and so on ... yet this seems to be the case.\n\nI'd definitely like an amendment that spells out the "Constitutional privacy" I learned about in High School Civics class. This Constitutional privacy was the other side of Constitutional obligation. The two of them together defined the limits of government power, something we today are in sore need of.\n\nObligation: If activity infringes your rights, then the government MUST act to protect your rights. If it refuses to do so, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government do its job.\n\nPrivacy: If your activity does NOT infringe on the rights of others, then the government MAY NOT interfere to curtail that activity. If it does, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government respect your right to privacy.\n\nNote on obligation: This does not mean that government can or should guarantee that you will never be robbed, only that government has an obligation to consider theft to be a crime and to take reasonable measures to prevent theft, to apprehend and punish theives.\n\nNote on privacy: There are cases where government can interfere in public activity, but must "butt out" where the activity is in private between consenting adults. Sexual behavior is a good example.\n\nNote on both: True, we have many laws that violate this principle. For instance, some say that "No beer sales on Sunday" violates this principle. That these laws have not (as yet) been successfully challenged and repealed does not negate the principle.
1138420
4th Amendment-"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\nSome would say yes because of the Domestic Wiretapping issue
285031
http://www.justia.us/index.html\n\nSearch for 'telegraph'
1010235
Rights you recieve.  Duties you give.\n\nIt is your right to a fair trial.\n\nIt is your duty to report a crime.
79423
It's not...not in so many words anyways...the main thing that leads privacy to be upheld is the Supreme Court decisions.  There are some indications in the Fourth Amendment, but privacy's boundaries and definition are explored in various cases including: Roe v Wade, Olmstead v. United States, Griswold v. Connecticut, etc.  Hope this helps!
483348
LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL WHO CAN AFFORD IT \n\n GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT \n unfortunately that is how the law really works
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
306640
You have the right to remain silent. \nYou have the right to prove yourself innocent, or you will remain guilty.\nYou have the right to an attorney.\nYou have the right to a speedy trial.
67577
You're correct. \n\nThe Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights is \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."