Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The amendment as proposed by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the states: No 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 ...
When a constitutional amendment is sent to the states for ratification, the Archivist of the United States is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. § 106b. [5]
The case was argued on January 6, 1940, in front of the court by S.D. McGill, a Black civil rights attorney involved with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, representing four black men convicted for the murder of a white man in Florida.
New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) Whether a regulatory action that diminishes the value of a claimant's property constitutes a "taking" of that property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment depends on several factors, including the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, particularly the extent to which the regulation has ...
The Fifth Amendment, like all the other guaranties in the first eight amendments, applies only to proceedings by the federal government (Barron v. City of Baltimore , 7 Pet. 243), and the double jeopardy therein forbidden is a second prosecution under authority of the federal government after a first trial for the same offense under the same ...
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on the right to travel and passport restrictions as they relate to First Amendment free speech rights. [1]
The number of respondents who said the First Amendment shouldn’t be changed increased by 10% since 2020. And most Americans surveyed said they still believed the First Amendment is vital to society.
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. [1] Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States. [2] [3]