what cases have ben won using the 10th amendment?
963100
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
898075
I can't find the text of the decision online, but if you have access to LexisNexis or Westlaw, the citation for the case is 595 F. Supp. 1521. You could also go to a law library and look it up in the Federal Reporter. The ruling was made by a Connecticut Federal District Court in 1984.
252237
Look up the Insular cases, Espionage Act, Alien Act, and New York Times v. Sullivan
757327
It would be a good idea to look up the 11th amendment to the US Constitution. I have and am completely without ideas as it is a hard one to capture in pictures. It gives citizens of any state the right to sue a state.
181146
The decision was based on the 14th amendment.  The case was Afroyim vs. Rusk and details can be found at:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk
163790
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbahome.html
913292
If this is for an essay and you have time for research then you use a treatise on constitutional law. There are also resources online.\n\nThe US Supreme Court rules on the federal constitution. State supreme courts (in NYS the Court of Appeals -- their supreme court is the lowest court of general jurisdiction, following English practice) rule on state constitutions. Here's an example where a state law on double jeopardy was stricter than the federal rule: http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/192P2d449.htm (in federal practice, two different sovereigns can prosecute the same offense, California law (only) is different).\n\nCiting a US Supreme Court case is easy. You go to http://www.lexisone.com (free registration required) or to http://justia.us (uses Google searching rules which may be more familiar to you) and you look for what you want -- key words, etc. Supreme Court cases are cited in the pattern "Smith v. Jones, 123 U.S. 456 (19XX)".\n\nMost Supreme Court constitutional law cases are famous: Roe v. Wade (abortion), Loving v. Viriginia (miscegenation), Lawrence v. Texas (sodomy), Miranda v. Arizona (right to warnings upon arrest), Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel). And so on.
970016
1865- Lincoln shot\n1852- Harriet Beecher published Uncle Tom's Cabin\n1868- fourteenth amendment radified, nationalized citizenship.\n1873- Slaughterhouse case, a distinction between national and state citizenship was drawn.\n1776- first state constitution of Virginia, George Mason declared general warrants were oppressive and should not be granted.\n1787, (testing 1776) the house of Benjamin Frisbee was searched for stolen pork. The Superior Court ruled the search unconstitutional.\n1914- Weeks vs. United States- Weeks was arrested without a warrant for attempting to conduct a lottery by mail.The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, stating the arrest and search were unlawful.\n1743-First town meeting held in America at Boston's Faneuil Hall.\n1913-direct election of senatorsadopted with the 17th amendment.\n1916-Woodrow Wilson sent soldiers into Mexico after Poncho Villa, the bandit.
549767
constitional ,federal, case law, state and common
248428
Richard Lyle Austin was arrested in South Dakota for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute on 02 August 1990. He pled guilty, and on 07 September 1990, authorities seized the mobile home and the body shop owned by Austin as both locations were used by Austin in the deal. Austin filed a suit claiming the seizures violated his 8th Amendment rights vis a vis the Excessive Fines Clause.\n\nThe following is a cut and paste job from http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/legal/l1990/richard_lyle_austin.htm\n\nAfter a state court sentenced petitioner Austin on his guilty plea to one count of possessing cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of South Dakota law, the United States filed an in rem action in Federal District Court against his mobile home and auto body shop under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(4) and (a)(7), which provide for the forfeiture of, respectively, vehicles and real property used, or intended to be used, to facilitate the commission of certain drug related crimes. In granting the Government summary judgment on the basis of an officer's affidavit that Austin had brought two ounces of cocaine from the mobile home to the body shop in order to consummate a prearranged sale there, the court rejected Austin's argument that forfeiture of his properties would violate the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause. The Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with the Government that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable to in rem civil forfeitures.
1092291
Determined by supreme court case.
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?"
296987
Women can vote...that's the only one that mattered ;) haha\n\n\nThe Constitution has a total of 27 amendments. Here you go--you asked ;)\n\nFirst Amendment\n\nThe First Amendment addresses the rights of freedom of speech and the press; the right of peaceful assembly; and the right of petition. It also addresses freedom of religion, both in terms of prohibiting the establishment of religion and protecting the right to free exercise of religion.\n[edit]\n\nSecond Amendment\n\n    main article: Second Amendment\n\nThe Second Amendment states, in its entirety, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Compared to other amendments, there is little case law about the Second Amendment.\n[edit]\n\nThird Amendment\n\nThe Third Amendment prohibits the government from using private homes as quarters for soldiers without the consent of the owners. Much as the Second Amendment, there is largely no case law. There has been no Supreme Court case law, and only one odd case, Engblom v. Carey, which has even addressed the Third Amendment.[2]\n[edit]\n\nFourth Amendment\n\nThe Fourth Amendment guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. A general right to privacy has been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court (See Griswold v. Connecticut), including a right to medical abortion.\n[edit]\n\nFifth through Eighth Amendments\n\nThe next four amendments deal with the system of justice. The fifth forbids trial for a major crime except after indictment by a grand jury; prohibits repeated trials for the same offense after an acquittal (except in certain very limited circumstances); forbids punishment without due process of law; and provides that an accused person may not be compelled to testify against himself (this is also known as "Taking the fifth" or "Pleading the fifth"). This is regarded as the "rights of the accused" amendment. The sixth guarantees a speedy public trial for criminal offenses. It requires trial by a jury (of peers), guarantees the right to legal counsel for the accused, and guarantees that the accused may require witnesses to attend the trial and testify in the presence of the accused. The seventh assures trial by jury in civil cases involving anything valued at more than 20 United States dollars at the time, which is currently worth $300 presently, when accounting for inflation. The eighth forbids excessive bail or fines, and cruel and unusual punishment. In 1966 the Supreme Court ruled that the fifth and sixth amendments were to be read to all persons placed under arrest, and as a result these two amendments have become known as the Miranda warning or Miranda rights.\n[edit]\n\nNinth and Tenth Amendments\n\nThe last two of the first ten amendments contain very broad statements of constitutional authority.\n\nThe Ninth Amendment declares that the listing of individual rights in the Bill of Rights is not meant to be comprehensive; that the people have other unenumerated rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. The right of privacy has been interpreted as one of these unenumerated rights by many people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms (the protection of which right the Second Amendment prohibits infringement) is also often interpreted as another of these unenumerated rights by many people. [3] Other, pre-existing, non-enumerated rights, besides just these two, continue to exist because of the Ninth Amendment. There is little case law.\n\nThe Tenth Amendment provides that powers the Constitution does not delegate to the United States and does not prohibit the states from having are "reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The phrase "or to the people", somewhat puzzling as to its applicabil
896962
The maximum is 10 for federal
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.
231676
What state?  What ruling?
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.