Selected Amendments from the Bill of Rights
This passage consists of five amendments from the Bill of Rights.
Amendment 1
1 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment 4
2. 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.
Amendment 5
3 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 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.
Amendment 6
4 In 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
New evidence is discovered for a case in which the person charged with the crime has already been found 'not guilty.' Which amendment prohibits the state from trying that person again on the same charges?
- A. Amendment 4
- B. Amendment 5
- C. Amendment 6
- D. Amendment 10
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
The Fifth Amendment includes the protection against double jeopardy, which prohibits an individual from being tried again for the same crime after a verdict of not guilty. This principle ensures that once a person has been acquitted, they cannot face the same charges again, regardless of new evidence. Option A, the Fourth Amendment, deals with protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is unrelated to criminal trials. Option C, the Sixth Amendment, guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions, such as the right to a speedy trial and an impartial jury, but does not address double jeopardy. Option D, the Tenth Amendment, reserves powers to the states and the people, but does not pertain to criminal prosecution rights.
The Fifth Amendment includes the protection against double jeopardy, which prohibits an individual from being tried again for the same crime after a verdict of not guilty. This principle ensures that once a person has been acquitted, they cannot face the same charges again, regardless of new evidence. Option A, the Fourth Amendment, deals with protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is unrelated to criminal trials. Option C, the Sixth Amendment, guarantees rights related to criminal prosecutions, such as the right to a speedy trial and an impartial jury, but does not address double jeopardy. Option D, the Tenth Amendment, reserves powers to the states and the people, but does not pertain to criminal prosecution rights.
Other Related Questions
Which of these pairs of cases deals with First Amendment rights?
- A. Commonwealth v. Hunt and Brown v. Board of Education
- B. Muller v. Oregon and Schenck v. United States
- C. Schenck v. United States and Engel v. Vitale
- D. Brown v. Board of Education and Engel v. Vitale
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
Option C features Schenck v. United States and Engel v. Vitale, both pivotal cases addressing First Amendment rights. Schenck examined free speech limitations during wartime, while Engel addressed the separation of church and state in public schools, emphasizing freedom of religion. Option A includes Commonwealth v. Hunt, focused on labor rights, and Brown v. Board of Education, which, although significant for civil rights, does not directly pertain to First Amendment issues. Option B includes Muller v. Oregon, centered on labor laws, and Schenck, which, while relevant, does not pair with a Second case addressing First Amendment rights. Option D pairs Brown v. Board of Education with Engel v. Vitale, where only Engel pertains to First Amendment issues, making it an incomplete choice.
Option C features Schenck v. United States and Engel v. Vitale, both pivotal cases addressing First Amendment rights. Schenck examined free speech limitations during wartime, while Engel addressed the separation of church and state in public schools, emphasizing freedom of religion. Option A includes Commonwealth v. Hunt, focused on labor rights, and Brown v. Board of Education, which, although significant for civil rights, does not directly pertain to First Amendment issues. Option B includes Muller v. Oregon, centered on labor laws, and Schenck, which, while relevant, does not pair with a Second case addressing First Amendment rights. Option D pairs Brown v. Board of Education with Engel v. Vitale, where only Engel pertains to First Amendment issues, making it an incomplete choice.
Assume that the state of Kansas passed a law limiting the number of hours teenagers could work on farms, and the state's farmers challenged the law. The decision in which of these cases could be cited in support of Kansas's law?
- A. Commonwealth v. Hunt
- B. Muller v. Oregon
- C. Brown v. Board of Education
- D. Engel v. Vitale
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: B
Muller v. Oregon upheld the state's ability to regulate working hours for women, emphasizing the government's role in protecting public welfare. This precedent supports Kansas's law limiting teenage work hours on farms, as it aligns with the principle of safeguarding minors' health and well-being. Commonwealth v. Hunt dealt with labor unions and the right to organize, which does not pertain to youth labor regulations. Brown v. Board of Education focused on desegregation in schools, irrelevant to labor laws. Engel v. Vitale addressed school prayer, having no connection to employment issues. Thus, only Muller v. Oregon directly supports the rationale for Kansas's law.
Muller v. Oregon upheld the state's ability to regulate working hours for women, emphasizing the government's role in protecting public welfare. This precedent supports Kansas's law limiting teenage work hours on farms, as it aligns with the principle of safeguarding minors' health and well-being. Commonwealth v. Hunt dealt with labor unions and the right to organize, which does not pertain to youth labor regulations. Brown v. Board of Education focused on desegregation in schools, irrelevant to labor laws. Engel v. Vitale addressed school prayer, having no connection to employment issues. Thus, only Muller v. Oregon directly supports the rationale for Kansas's law.
In Cartoon 2, the two-faced figure attempts to convince American laborers to support tariffs by appealing to their
- A. fear that foreign workers would work for lower wages.
- B. desire to prove that American-made products were superior to products made by foreign workers.
- C. fear that foreign workers would bring radical political ideas.
- D. desire to share the American standard of living with foreign workers.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: A
The two-faced figure in Cartoon 2 appeals to American laborers' fear that foreign workers would work for lower wages, which threatens their job security and income. This fear is a powerful motivator for supporting tariffs, as it aims to protect domestic jobs from cheaper foreign labor. Option B, while highlighting a desire for quality, does not directly address the immediate economic concern of job security. Option C introduces a political fear, but the cartoon focuses more on economic implications. Option D suggests a sense of altruism, which contrasts with the self-interest driving laborers' decisions regarding tariffs.
The two-faced figure in Cartoon 2 appeals to American laborers' fear that foreign workers would work for lower wages, which threatens their job security and income. This fear is a powerful motivator for supporting tariffs, as it aims to protect domestic jobs from cheaper foreign labor. Option B, while highlighting a desire for quality, does not directly address the immediate economic concern of job security. Option C introduces a political fear, but the cartoon focuses more on economic implications. Option D suggests a sense of altruism, which contrasts with the self-interest driving laborers' decisions regarding tariffs.
Which of these statements best describes the difference between Commonwealth v. Hunt and Muller v. Oregon?
- A. Commonwealth v. Hunt is relevant only to education cases, while Muller v. Oregon is relevant only to issues of labor relations.
- B. Commonwealth v. Hunt is relevant only to labor issues, while Muller v. Oregon is relevant only to free speech issues.
- C. Both cases deal with labor issues; Commonwealth v. Hunt allows the existence of labor unions, while Muller v. Oregon gives businesses the right to challenge unions' demands.
- D. Both cases deal with labor cases; Commonwealth v. Hunt allows the existence of labor unions, while Muller v. Oregon supports state regulation of working hours for women.
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: D
Both cases address labor issues but focus on different aspects. Commonwealth v. Hunt established that labor unions are legal and can organize, promoting workers' rights. In contrast, Muller v. Oregon upheld state regulations on women's working hours, emphasizing the government's role in protecting workers' welfare. Option A incorrectly limits Commonwealth v. Hunt to education cases, while B misrepresents both cases by suggesting they only concern labor and free speech issues. Option C inaccurately implies that Muller v. Oregon allows businesses to challenge unions, which is not its focus.
Both cases address labor issues but focus on different aspects. Commonwealth v. Hunt established that labor unions are legal and can organize, promoting workers' rights. In contrast, Muller v. Oregon upheld state regulations on women's working hours, emphasizing the government's role in protecting workers' welfare. Option A incorrectly limits Commonwealth v. Hunt to education cases, while B misrepresents both cases by suggesting they only concern labor and free speech issues. Option C inaccurately implies that Muller v. Oregon allows businesses to challenge unions, which is not its focus.