explain how reasonable limits clause and notwithstanding clause allow for rights and freedoms to be limited?
815177
You aren't free to be an a$$hole is what it amounts to.  Beats the old system where such behavior earned you a swift execution.
848875
basically the purpose of the supremacy clause is to ensure that  the federal law is the "law of the land'. \nFederalism allows for the seperation of powers;  state and federal. sometimes these powers come into conflict with each other. The supremacy clause resolves the conflict by basically saying that no state law or state constituiton or state judge can rule against the constitution of the US. \nThis was previlant when the south attempted secceed from the union based on their state laws. However Federal law trumps state law, it would have been unconstitutional for them to seceed from the union. \nState law cannot "outrank" Federal law.
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."
541956
Equal rights for all US born citizens and legal immigrants.\n\nAmongst others:\n-government cannot limit free speech (first amendment)\n-government cannot limit right to bear arms (second amendment, liberals try to limit this right all the time)\n-government cannot mandate a religion (though there is no specific requirement for separation of church and state)\n\netc...
889461
Federalist supported a strong central government...\nThe Bill of Rights limits the power of the federal government.\n\nAnti-federalists feared a strong central government and felt that the Bill of Rights curbed the power of the federal government.
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
658977
Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion. \n\nThe most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.
105967
not without a warrant, 4th ammendment:\n\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.
378032
A good rule of thumb is you have rights to just about any action that doesn't impinge upon the rights of others. Example: you have the right to smoke but not where other people are that don't want to be exposed to second hand smoke, like a restaurant.
230997
i believe in certain situations it would be permissable. for example, if what somebody is doing affects another person or group in a negative way then the government should be allowed to step in. the government works for us as a whole, not each individual person. we are allowed certain freedoms and to do most things the way we want to but there are limits on everything. if protecting society by limiting one person's freedoms is the best plan of action then the government should have every right to do so
854114
It is practically impossible to answer your question because you do not have enough information.  What article, source, or amendment?  Are you referring to some type of statute?  Are you referring to a Constitutional Amendment?  An article of a statute?  \n\nYou don't have enough information here.  You should go to the library and speak to the librararians.  They will be able to assist you.
817660
Freedom of action within limits, with honour and dignity.\nViolators may be hated and not attacked.
351032
As the saying goes, limit to ones freedom is when it encroaches someone else's.  I would draw a parallel here to answer your question.  \n\nTHe line to sharing liberty is where it diminishes the country's overall capacity for liberty.  It is just impractical to grant refuge and peace for all who are seeking a better life and taking advantage of the US not to mention the huddled masses.\n\nHow in the world can we share liberty considering one aspect, of health coverage, when 40 million Americans have no medical insurance?  when going at the current rate, Medicare would be bankcrupt in less than 30 years?\n\nWe can only afford those whose lives are in danger if turned away for now.  Until we get our houses in order, that's where I would vote the line to be drawn.
490105
This right is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. \n\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."
891001
The answer above is almost right...but misses by one clause.\n\nThe exclusionary rule acts to prevent the introduction of evidence obtained improperly. This can impact either side, but most often impacts the prosecution (for example, in a case in which evidence is obtained in an illegal search). However, it can also have an effect in a civil trial, and be imposed against either side.
943367
It limits government action (enumerated powers), provides areas that the government cannot intrude upon (personal rights), and provides a fixed structure for how the government operates.\n\nDetails vary by country, but those aspects are pretty common to all.
1164055
It means to make the blessings of liberty safe.\n\nAssuming you mean the line from the preamble, it means that liberty and all the blessings that go with it will be safe for that generation and be further protected for future generations.  That was why they ordained and established the constitution.\nThe constitution is the way that those liberties the founding fathers held most important (freedoms) would be protected from government interferings forever.