Enter text here

Enter text here

1. 14th Amendment

   • was ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former enslaved people—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws The 14th Amendment granted U.S. citizenship to former slaves and contained three new limits on state power: a state shall not violate a citizen's privileges or immunities; shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and must guarantee all persons equal protection of the laws.
   • 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments
     • The 4th Amendment protects you from unlawful searches. The 5th Amendment is the right to remain silent. The 6th Amendment is the right to counsel
     • court cases
       • 1st Clarence Thomas A former employee at the EEOC, Anita Hill, accused him of sexual harassment. After the FBI investigated and returned with an inconclusive report, the Senate initially decided not to pursue the report and continued with the hearings. The accusation was leaked to the press, and women’s rights groups across America demanded that the Senate further investigate the matter. Anita Hill was called to testify in front of the Senate. Thomas denied all the allegations and spoke out against the unprofessional nature of the proceedings. Eventually, the Senate confirmed Thomas in October 1991 by the narrowest margin in a century.
         • e   it brought workplace sexual harassment to light as it was the first time someone had so publicly shared her account of workplace harassment—something that so many of them had experienced.   
       • 2nd District of Colombia V. Heller Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer who was authorized to carry a handgun while on duty. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun he wished to keep at home, but his application was denied. Heller sued the District of Columbia. He sought an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant parts of the Code and argued that they violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home without a license. The district court dismissed the complaint. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep firearms in the home for the purpose of self-defense, and the District of Columbia’s requirement that firearms kept in the home be nonfunctional violated that right.
         •    ·         From a statement by Justice John Paul Stevens this case impacted the criminal justice system since the Second Amendment does not create an unlimited right to possess guns for self-defense purposes. Instead, the most natural reading of the Amendment is that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes but does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons. Justice Stevens argued that the Amendment states its purpose specifically in relation to state militias and does not address the right to use firearms in self-defense, which is particularly striking in light of similar state provisions from the same time that do so.   
       • 4th Badgerow V. Walters Badgerow signed an agreement to arbitrate any disputes that may arise between her and the three principals of the corporation. After her termination, Badgerow initiated an arbitration proceeding against the three principals before an arbitration panel of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), seeking damages for tortious interference of contract and for violation of Louisiana’s whistleblower law. The panel dismissed all of her claims with prejudice
       • 5th Chambers v. Florida (1940) After four Black men were held under dangerous circumstances and forced to confess to murder charges under duress, they were convicted and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court, to its credit, took issue with that
         •    No higher duty, no more solemn responsibility, rests upon this Court than that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield deliberately planned and inscribed for the benefit of every human being subject to our Constitution -- of whatever race, creed or persuasion.   
       • 6th In Michigan v. Harvey, the Court addressed whether statements obtained in violation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights could be used to impeach his false or inconsistent trial testimony. In Harvey, the police initiated a conversation with the defendant after he invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, and he subsequently waived his right and made an incriminating statement. The Court held that the statement could be used to impeach the defendant's trial testimony, even though the police violated the prophylactic rule that such a waiver is presumed invalid if secured pursuant to police-initiated conversation. The Court reserved decision, however, on whether such statements would be admissible for impeachment if the police engage in conduct, such as the use of jailhouse informants, that prevents them from obtaining a valid waiver.
         • According to this case, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the rights of criminal defendants, including the right to a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you.
       • 8th Brown V. Davenport A Michigan jury convicted Ervine Lee Davenport of first-degree murder in 2008. He challenged his conviction in a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 because at trial he was restrained at the waist, wrist, and ankles, although there was a privacy curtain around the defense table. The State admitted that the visible restraints were unconstitutional but argued that the error was harmless. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed, finding that while it was error for the trial court to order the defendant to be restrained without justification, Davenport had not shown that his restraints were visible to the jury and thus failed to show prejudice. The Michigan Supreme Court reversed and remanded, and on remand, five jurors testified that they saw the shackles and two others had heard comments about the shackles.
         • The eighth amendment is very important because it guarantees many “freedom from” rights. For example, it protects Americans from cruel and unusual punishments. Without the eighth amendment many people would be punished in an inhumane manner based on the morals of the judge.