Kelo v. New London?  Your opinion? The  5th Amendment?
146248
In my opinion, "public use" refers to a building or other construction that well, the majority of the public would use. For example: malls, roads, hotels, libraries, monuments, etc.\n\nAs for private businesses, probably not. Government shouldn't be in the business of aiding private organizations just so they can increase their profits at the expense of homeowners. But these places CAN increase tourism and commerce, so I guess a good argument could be made in most cases.\n\nSo, I mostly agree in what the Court ruled, that as long as the taking is "pursuant to a carefully considered development plan", and wasn't only for the benefit of a select few, but rather, the public at large.\n\nAlso, I believe the 5th Amendment says something about "just compensation", so it's not like the government stealing property from you without giving you anything in return ;)
877310
Many prefer security to freedom, becuase they don't ever attempt to utilize their freedoms, so they don't realize when they have lost them.\n\nI'm from New Hampshire, the "Live Free or Die" state. And I try to remind people that we only have those freedoms that we can defend. And we only have those rights we choose to fight for.\n\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n\nIn honor of Pastor Martin Niemöller:\n\nFirst they came for the 6th Amendment, but I hadn't been accused of a crime, so I didn't object to denial of counsel.\n\nThen they came for the 4th Amendment, but I wasn't talking to anyone overseas, so they wouldn't be monitoring me.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 4th Amendment, but I only called my mother, so there was nothing suspicious in my phone records.\n\nThen they came for the 1st Amendment, but I never associated with criminals, so I didn't worry about being convicted purely based on what other people might do.\n\nThen they came for the 14th Amendment, but I never really understood the rules for Due Process (and wasn't allowed an attorney), so I didn't object.\n\nThen they came for the rest of the 1st Amendment, but I never told anyone about what the government was doing, so again I remained silent.\n\nThen they came for the 5th Amendment,  ......  and I no longer had the right to remain silent.
157210
It violates the 6th amendment in that it allows the government to jail citizens indefinately without a trial. This also violates the 13th amendment (punishment without conviction). It violates the 4th amendment in that it allows wiretapping, survalience of internet use,  and disclosure of library records without probable cause. It violates the first amendment in that it criminalizes ANY discussion of specific FBI searches. \n\nBad legislation from the worst administration EVER.
33813
the third ammendment really isnt relavent today.. this was made clear specifically in the constitution because before the revolution.. the british did this.. today.. we have military bases. and housing specifically for american service people.. \n\nthe 9th is used all the time.. some relating issues.. right to privacy which is not specifically in the constitution.. roe vs wade ruling was based on privacy rights..(contradictory to popular belief)...
626756
fifth amendmant.\n\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.
319650
Its an "implied right".  Its not in the constitution.
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.
653212
From memory:\n\n[I] Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall congress impose any restraints on speech, nor of the press, nor of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.\n\n[II] A well regulated militia being necessary for the defense of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\n[III] No troops shall be quartered in private homes during time of peace, without consent of the owner, nor during time of war except as may be prescribed by law.\n\n[IV] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, documents and effects shall not be infringed; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nI know that the 5th Amendment includes the right against self-incrimination, against government taking without just compensation, the due process clause, plus a couple other protections I can't remember right now. The 6th guarantees right to a speedy and public trial, right to a jury in criminal trials, and right to counsel in criminal trials. The 7th includes right to a jury in civil trials over a certain amount. The 8th includes the prohibition against excessive bail, and against torture.\n\n[IX] The enumeration of certain rights herein shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.\n\n[X] Any powers not expressly granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, shall be reserved  for the states and for the people.\n\nThat's it from memory. Then I looked it up. I got some detail wording wrong on all of them, forgot that the prohibition in 4 is only against unreasonable searches, missed the grand jury and double jeopardy clauses of the 5th, the confrontation and notice clauses of the 6th, and it's "cruel and unusual punishment" for the 8th. Oh well, back to studying.
57404
Yes. Privacy rights should be the subject of the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I recognize, of course, that several landmark cases have made privacy a "fundamental" right under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, but I do not feel safe given the progressively more conservative orientation of the Court.  If and when Judge Alito joins the Court, silenced will be the voice of Justice O'Connor, an important voice of reason on the subject of privacy.  An amendment could explicitly enumerate what privacy rights are protected and inviolable.
37895
There is no specific right to privacy granted in the constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court has ruled that it is implicit in the "penumbras" of the various amendments. Concurring opinions referred to the ninth amendment which says that rights not explicitly given in the constitution to the people are not to be denied them as well as the 4th and 5th amendment requirements of due process. The main case establishing this precedent was Griswold v. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional a law banning contraceptives.
1126740
One other guy was close when he said that the supreme court gave some certain rights to this. But the  problem is some states took that too far.\n\nI read over some of the answers and either ppl didn't understand your question or their states don't do what you are referring to. Mine does so I get it.\n\nBottom line: they should NOT have this right. I agree with you completely on the right of passage being interfered with.
851001
Bill of Rights, First Amendment.
1096839
Before you go off on rants you should really read the decision. The court left open the possibility of congress enacting new law allowing tribunals.\n\nI also feel the need to point out that these are not American citizens, and as such are not subject to the same rights as American citizens. They are also not true enemy combatants which does not make them subject to the Geneva Convention. The Supreme Court has once again over stepped it bounds, and in essence have just ratified a treaty with terrorists which is completely outside their juristiction.\n\nDon't misunderstand I am not trying to slap you down, or denigrate your opinion, just trying to give clarification. I do not believe this decision is a good one for anyone involved. For Americans it puts our safety in jeopardy yet again. It also places the lives of the same people it is designed to help in jeopardy. Consider this, when faced with the reality that we cannot safely detain enemy non- combatants what will the result be on the battlefield? I can tell it isn't going to be altruistic in nature.\n\nDeeJay I don't remember the rights of Americans ever being an issue in this case. In fact in cases where American Citizens have been accused of the same acts they have been tried in American criminal courts with full constitutional protection.
716009
LMAO  Perfect question. I just got done emailing someone who thought that his constitutional rights were being violated and that was MORE important than the war on TERROR. I challenged him to name one right that he has lost personally. Well, no return email yet. Nor do I expect any logical one to come my way. LMAO\nYour question is great. And NONE of my ( laughing my a_s off while typing this) friends or neighbors have been carried off in the night because of President Bushs' war on terror. Which is really OUR WAR ON TERROR.....   .. .when can we get the foolish folk to learn?\n\nThings that make you go HMMMMMMMM\n\n\nEDIT* - I don't believe the posting directly above me. How could anyone sue the Federal Government and win a decision in such a short time. I think some radicals have hijacked her mind. Either that, or she has misunderstood the facts.\n\nEDIT* - I just read all the posts. Incredible that snotty nosed fools didn't 'get the the true meaning' of your question.
25724
I think it's better for you to stick with the original question.  Many people in many countries, like China or Sudan, suffer real religious persecution, for instance, and do not have access to our legal system.  The United States simply protected individual liberties better than any country in the world.\n\nThat said, Michael Newdow's rights have not been violated.  The Supreme Court has repeatedly articulated "standing" requirements for plaintiffs, which means that the plaintiff has a "case or controversy" under Article III of the Constitution, and the federal court system is authorized to hear that "case or controversy."\n\nSix principles have been repeatedly articulated by the Court in cases like Valley Forge. Three are constitutional: the plaintiff must have and injury in fact (actual or threatened, and imminent); the harm caused must be fairly traceable to the conduct; and a favorable court decision will lead to redress.  Three are prudential: no third-party standing is permitted on concern of the vigor of the litigations; no generalized grievances will be heard, since equal harm is dispersed among population; and the harm must occur within the "zone of interests" of the plaintiff.\n\nThe Lujan case suggested that the "generalized grievances" standard is more of a constitutional than prudential claim, and it appears that Newdow's claim falls under that prong of the test.  Nevertheless, under contemporary standing doctrine, Newdow's does not have a "concrete and particularized injury," but only a "general grievance" as an offended bystander.
1159593
Absolutely not.  My favorite, if not the best, example would be the thousands of gun control laws on the books.  These are clearly in violation of the 2nd Amendment which states quite clearly (in easy-to-understand, one- and two-syllable English words) that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\n\nAnother example is the way the "necessary and proper" clause has come to mean "convenient."  When the Supreme Court can re-define words in the Constitution to mean whatever they want, then what's the point of having a Constitution in the first place?\n\nThe interstate commerce clause has been stretched to absurd proportions so that Congress can now regulate anything that it wants based on the fact that somebody, somewhere might have once traded with someone in another state.\n\nDoes anyone remember the 9th and 10th Amendments, which tell us that the federal government is only allowed to do those few things which are specifically stated in the Constitution?  And yet there are volumes upon volumes of federal statutes that micromanage our lives.\n\nThe American people, through ignorance and apathy, have allowed their government to get by with this.  I know of no solution.  If the people have more faith in legal interpretations and judges' rulings than in their own ability to understand the simple words written down where all can see, then they deserve the tyrannical, authoritarian state that they are destined to get.\n\nFinally, I want to add that I once took a college course called "Constitutional Rights and Liberties."  But the curriculum was focused not around what those rights and liberties are, but on what judges have said about them.  It was a study in case law.  When people are taught that case law is more important than what the Constitution actually says, the outcome is predictable.  We come to depend on the government to interpret for us the document that is supposed to limit its scope of power.  Isn't this like signing a lease with a landlord that says the landlord gets to decide at any point on any question what the lease says?  Isn't re-defining "necessary" to mean "convenient" analogous to re-defining "$400 per month" to mean "$600 per month?"
135530
hey i asked the same question... no use its too hard: are you from is5 ... is this for a constitutional scavenger hunt