According to the precedents and rulings set by the Supreme Court, the First Amendment protects many forms of free speech, including the promotion of anarchy or Communism, public criticism of the government’s policies during wartime, and even speech regarding the violent overthrow of the government – provided that such language does not explicitly lead to violent activity. However, the Court has found that the First Amendment does not, in fact, protect libelous speech. Although libel is often confused with slander, the two terms are legally different – libel is defined as a written negative statement about an individual, while slander (which is protected by the First Amendment) pertains to spoken speech only. Yet the Court has also set very high standards for any individual seeking to sue for libel, especially if the individual in question is a public figure (such as a politician or celebrity). According to the Court, the plaintiff (the person bringing the libel charge) must prove not only that the written statements in question are false but also that the accused author intentionally penned the comments with harmful intent. In other words, in order to win a libel case, the plaintiff must be able to be prove that the accused author willfully lied in an attempt to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and/or life. Such a standard is clearly quite difficult to meet – after all, how precisely does someone find absolute proof of another person’s inner motivations? Libel cases are thus hardly ever decided in favor of the plaintiff, although private individuals (aka average citizens) do have a very slightly higher success rate.

The Supreme Court had placed a moratorium on the death penalty in the 1972 case Furman v. Georgia. However, a majority of the justices had ruled in Furman that capital punishment was only unconstitutional as then currently practiced. With the Gregg decision, many new capital punishment laws, with stricter standards for which defendants were eligible and how due process would unfold, were ruled as legitmately constitutional, ending the four year moratorium on the death penalty.

The Fifth Amendment is the correct answer. Recall, the Fifth Amendment has multiple “clauses” or parts, including all of the following clauses: the ‘takings,’ grand jury, double jeopardy, due process, and—the reason the answer is correct—the self-incrimination clause. While this answer may sound like it stems from the Eighth Amendment (as it deals with things like excessive punishments), it does not.

The Eighth Amendment (above) deals with excessive/cruel punishment;

The Twentieth Amendment reduced the amount of “lame duck” time faced by an outgoing Congress.

The Twelfth Amendment restructured the way in which the President and Vice President were elected from the winner (president) and runner up (vice-president) to two different ballots (that is, the President and Vice President are elected separately by the Electoral College). Can you see why the first way would be uncomfortable for the President/VP? (Hint: it has to do with political parties). 

The Fourteenth Amendment, similar to the Fifth, has many clauses (due process, equal protection, etc) none of which are relevant here. 

This Amendment is designed to protect those that have been arrested and also those that have been found guilty of crimes. This Amendment is meant to ensure that a person is not over punished for a crime and attempts to stop someone from being punished out of vengeance. The Amendment also wants to limit the bail that can be placed on someone while that person is waiting for trail, as it used to be that only the rich could afford post bail, which was very unfair to those that were not wealthy.

This Amendment provides various protections for those going through a trial, including the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” This was included to ensure that people have the help of someone who understands the law and could defend the accused and to protect against the government putting someone on trial and the accused having no idea what happens during a trial or how to defend him/herself.

Several Constitutional Amendments deal with the protections afforded to those citizens who find themselves accused of a crime, whether on the national, state, or local levels. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from “unreasonable searches and seizures;” police officials cannot search any person or their property without a legally justified court warrant. The Fifth Amendment ensures that the accused individual may legally refuse to offer up any information that may implicate their involvement in or knowledge of a criminal act. This same Amendment also outlaws the practice of double jeopardy, meaning that an individual may not be put on trial twice (or any more times) for the same crime. The Sixth Amendment contains several rights: the accused has the right to receive the assistance of a lawyer, to confront any witnesses brought against them, and to have a “speedy trial” with fair jurors. The Seventh Amendment further reinforces the right to a trial by jury and the Eighth Amendment protects both accused and convicted defendants from any “cruel and unusual punishment” at the hands of the legal system. Surprisingly, the Miranda Rights (the famous list of rights which the police must legally read to anyone who is arrested) are not actually explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court actually drew up the Miranda Rights as part of a 1966 case, using the Fifth Amendment’s ban against forced self-incrimination as implied justification. The legal system is therefore bound to abide by these Miranda Rights just as if they were, in fact, actually enumerated in the Fifth Amendment.

The Wilmot Proviso is considered an important part of the build up to the outbreak of Civil War. It attempted to ban the extension of slavery into any states or territory acquired in the war with Mexico; however, it was repeatedly rejected in the Senate because the South had enough representatives to block such legislation from passing. The issue would be settled temporarily by the Compromise of 1850.

Grandfather clauses were established in the South during the Reconstruction era, after the Civil War, in an attempt to prevent many African-Americans from voting. In the Reconstruction era, many Southern states made laws declaring that any man voting had to pass strict literacy and property ownership tests, unless he could prove that his grandfather had been able to vote prior to the Civil War. Grandfather clauses were ruled unconstitutional in 1915.

In 1857, the Supreme Court made a decision that black Americans were inferior, not-citizens that didn’t hold equal rights to white men (regardless of free or slave status). This decision also struck a blow against new-land abolitionists, ruling that the federal government couldn’t control the legality of slavery in new federal territories.

The Thirteenth Amendment passed in 1865 at the end of the Civil War abolished slavery in the reunited Union.