for example. One of the pena laws says that if you know something you have to tell."its the law".. When the amendment says we have the right to say other wise.
123434
Re-read the 5th amendment, it only provides protection against SELF incrimination.  This means you can be compeled to give information against someone else, you just can't be compeled if the information could be used against you.  \n\nAlso if they give you immunity from being prosecuted then you can't be incriminated and thus can be compeled to give information.
325146
There is one basic test given to all rights the Court deems fundamental (Speech happens to be one of those rights).  That is the Compelling Interest Test (CIT).  Simply put, the government has to prove that is has a very compelling interest in overriding the right of the individual.  It must also show that the law or action being challenged is the least restrictive means possible of accomplishing that interest.\n\nNow, the CIT is completely made up by the Court.  There is nothing about it in the Constitution, just as there is nothing about the Lemon Test or the Lopez test in the Constitution.  Nevertheless, this is test usually followed by the Court.
618277
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.
206100
Some laws are passed to raise awareness and to initiate education plans. The first step in any enforcement plan is education. Ideally - the only type of enforcement necessary is self-enforcement by the citizenry.\n\nA good example is anti-smoking laws - very few plice convictions occur as a consequence of anti-smoking laws, but everyone knows the law and often self-enforce the regulations. No one lights up in a public place because they know that they are not allowed to, and if they do, it is likely that someone will tell them to butt out (i.e. the law is self regulating and enforcing).
345784
Similar systems are used on other countries as well.\n\nWhere there a multiple possible interpretations, the court should choose the one that makes sense given other laws. This could be to avoid absurdity, or to avoid conflict with other higher laws.
205915
A law that punsishes someone for an act that was not a crime at the time is an ex post facto law. \nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm\n\nThe court order to tell someone why he is being held or release him/her is a writ of habeas corpus, aka, the "great writ." \nhttp://www.lectlaw.com/def/h001.htm
281444
They have laws there?
667895
Must of us know that. It is a defense that some used. Some feel it is against the people or you would ignore the law. Ever see those questions where it said-we all break them? What kind of morals to they have? Do they truly believe that? \n You are right for many it is about country.
498193
Only one: the Fourteenth Amendment.\n\n"No state shall .... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."\n\nThere are some other amendments which expanded sufferage, but none of them mention equality (even though the equal right to vote is the obvious point of those other amendments).
289818
DUH!!!\nThe people who remember....know\nThe people who knew.....don't remember\nat this point....they're going to do and say whatever they want. If you want to get even, don't get mad....VOTE!\n(sometimes THAT wont even help)
53979
means that the constitution has been changed.  For example the drinking of alcohol used to be illegal by the Prohibition Act.  But the Constititution was "amended" (21st Amendment) to make the consumption of alcohol legal again
526059
The text reads:\nSection 1.\nThe eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.\n\nSection 2.\nThe transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use there in of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.\n\nSection 3.\nThis article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.\n\nBut for a commentary on the amendment, which by the way\nwas proposed by the United States Congress on February 20, 1933 and was fully ratified on December 5, 1933. This Amendment is thus far the only case, besides the initial ratification of the original Constitution, in which state conventions, specially selected for the purpose—not state legislatures—ratified the amendment, go to:\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt21_user.html#amdt21_hd3
378607
The power to act with a specif law
44449
It is hearsay, but the general rule is that a person's own statements to a third party can be used against them in court (both civil and criminal cases).  \n\nSo, if the perp tells you something, you can testify about what he said.  But if you tell the cops, the cops can't testify b/c the statment isn't from the perp himself.
584611
You can say whatever you want.\n\nGo for it.
161558
"They are really more like guidelines..."  I heard that once.  Common wisdom is morality is a personal choice, and cannot be obtained by imposing laws.  Laws and penalties can influence behavior by incentive and pushishments.
120845
they have a right to voice there feelings but get all of the facts, first. i guess what i'm tring to say is know what your fighting for don't march if you don't know what your really marching for.