It’s 8 questions… link for textbook is at the bottom

The Bill of Rights and Guaranteed Freedoms Student Name Institution Professor Name Course Date The Bill of Rights and Guaranteed Freedoms Freedoms/ Rights of the People First Amendment: Freedom of Speech The 1st Amendment guarantees “Freedom of Speech”, which allows people to express themselves without fear of government reprisal. It is a fundamental right of democracy and allows for public discourse, debate, and free criticism of the government; it is not absolute (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the 1st Amendment does not secure a few kinds of speech. For example, the incitement of imminent lawless action, as recognized in Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), is unprotected. Defamation, actual threats, and obscenities are outside the protection of free speech (Ruane, 2014). The government can limit speech in some contexts whereby it is necessary to ensure public safety and national security. These contexts can include time and manner of expression limitations, but they can even define the problems at hand. Second Amendment: “Right to Bear Arms” The 2nd Amendment guarantees the “right to keep and bear arms”. There has been an ongoing political and legal discussion about this right, which has coincided with the rise in gun violence (Gulasekaram, 2010). However, in “District of Columbia v. Heller 2008”, the Supreme Court ruled that a person can keep and carry arms for self-defense. Conversely, it is not an absolute right, as with any other right (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). The Court also holds that this right is to be subject to reasonable regulation; for instance, firearms laws have been (and could be) recognized to bar weapons in sensitive areas such as schools or to restrict specific categories of firearms such as assault weapons (Gulasekaram, 2010). Background checks, waiting periods, and limits on firearm possession for specific individuals, such as convicted felons and persons with mental illness, are among the measures a government can try to take on. Fourth Amendment: Protection from “Unreasonable Searches and Seizures” The 4th Amendment prohibits warrantless government searches and seizures. Law enforcement usually needs a warrant with probable cause to search (National Archives and Records Administration, n.d.). There are, however, some exceptions whereby evidence can be seized without a warrant, as the government can search under the plain view doctrine since an officer can view evidence in plain sight during a legal search (Knox, 1975). The exclusionary rule also prevents evidence gathered through unconstitutional searches from being used in a court. The Fourth Amendment affords substantial protection, but courts concede that there are exceptions in which a legitimate public safety concern outweighs the need. Sixth Amendment: “Right to a Fair Trial” People’s rights to a fair trial, including the right to counsel and unbiased juries, are safeguarded by the Sixth Amendment. This right ensures that people who have given up on crimes are treated fairly and have an opportunity to defend themselves in court. This right, however, is not absolute (Gilles, 1983). Courts can grant trial delays for valid reasons, like allowing the defense more time to prepare. Furthermore, some people choose not to have a jury and instead use a bench trial. Public access to a trial is almost always allowed unless it is needed to protect the safety of the parties to the case or the jury from the prejudicial trial coverage by news media. In this event, the court might limit public access. The Lemon Test and Free Speech Limits The Lemon Test, as laid out in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), can be used by individuals to ascertain whether or not governments’ actions follow the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause. There are three prongs on this test. According to the United States Supreme Court (2019), when Congress passes a law, it must not be motivated by religious motives, (2) not aimed at encouraging or discouraging religion, and (3) not result in an undue degree of government interference with religion. Any action by the government that does not conform to even one of these standards is considered illegal under the Establishment Clause. Currently, free expression is constrained by the “imminent lawless action” rule set by the Supreme Court in “Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)”. According to this standard, speech that encourages imminent and probably illegal conduct satisfies the requirements laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. Supreme Court, 2019). Here, the limits of free speech were established, and the burden of evidence was on the gover...