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
The U.S. Supreme Court considered a case in which a political activist was jailed for stating publicly that World War I was a rich man's war but a poor man's fight. To which case is this case most similar?
- A. Commonwealth v. Hunt
- B. Muller v. Oregon
- C. Schenck v. United States
- D. Brown v. Board of Education
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
The case involving the political activist parallels **Schenck v. United States** due to its focus on free speech during wartime. In Schenck, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an individual for distributing anti-draft leaflets, emphasizing that speech could be limited if it posed a "clear and present danger." **Commonwealth v. Hunt** pertains to labor unions and the legality of their activities, making it unrelated to free speech issues. **Muller v. Oregon** deals with labor laws and women's rights, not political expression. **Brown v. Board of Education** addresses racial segregation in schools, which diverges from the context of wartime speech and activism.
The case involving the political activist parallels **Schenck v. United States** due to its focus on free speech during wartime. In Schenck, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of an individual for distributing anti-draft leaflets, emphasizing that speech could be limited if it posed a "clear and present danger." **Commonwealth v. Hunt** pertains to labor unions and the legality of their activities, making it unrelated to free speech issues. **Muller v. Oregon** deals with labor laws and women's rights, not political expression. **Brown v. Board of Education** addresses racial segregation in schools, which diverges from the context of wartime speech and activism.
When is a government most likely to establish a wage floor?
- A. When wages have consistently increased over a long period of time
- B. When wages have remained constant over a long period of time
- C. When it determines wages are too low
- D. When it determines wages are too high
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
A wage floor, often implemented through minimum wage laws, is typically established when the government identifies that wages are too low, leading to insufficient income for workers. Option A is incorrect because a consistent increase in wages does not necessitate a wage floor; it may indicate a healthy economy. Option B is also wrong, as constant wages may not reflect a need for intervention unless they are deemed inadequate. Option D misinterprets the purpose of a wage floor; it is not set when wages are high, but rather to protect workers from unlivable pay levels. Thus, the rationale for a wage floor centers on addressing low wages.
A wage floor, often implemented through minimum wage laws, is typically established when the government identifies that wages are too low, leading to insufficient income for workers. Option A is incorrect because a consistent increase in wages does not necessitate a wage floor; it may indicate a healthy economy. Option B is also wrong, as constant wages may not reflect a need for intervention unless they are deemed inadequate. Option D misinterprets the purpose of a wage floor; it is not set when wages are high, but rather to protect workers from unlivable pay levels. Thus, the rationale for a wage floor centers on addressing low wages.
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.
What precedent was set by George Washington and maintained until the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt?
- A. Leaving economic policy decision-making to Congress
- B. Letting party officials pick the vice president candidate
- C. Serving no more than two terms as president
- D. Refusing to be directly involved in treaty negotiations
Correct Answer & Rationale
Correct Answer: C
George Washington established the tradition of serving no more than two terms as president, setting a standard for future leaders that emphasized the importance of a peaceful transfer of power and discouraging the concentration of authority. This precedent was respected until Franklin D. Roosevelt's four-term presidency, which ultimately led to the 22nd Amendment. Option A is incorrect; while Congress plays a significant role in economic policy, Washington's precedent focused on presidential term limits. Option B is misleading, as party officials did not formally select vice presidential candidates until later. Option D is inaccurate; Washington engaged in treaty negotiations, illustrating presidential involvement in foreign affairs.
George Washington established the tradition of serving no more than two terms as president, setting a standard for future leaders that emphasized the importance of a peaceful transfer of power and discouraging the concentration of authority. This precedent was respected until Franklin D. Roosevelt's four-term presidency, which ultimately led to the 22nd Amendment. Option A is incorrect; while Congress plays a significant role in economic policy, Washington's precedent focused on presidential term limits. Option B is misleading, as party officials did not formally select vice presidential candidates until later. Option D is inaccurate; Washington engaged in treaty negotiations, illustrating presidential involvement in foreign affairs.