The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence; in the words of
Gordon S. Wood, "After ratification, most Americans promptly forgot about the first ten amendments to the Constitution." The Court made no important decisions protecting free speech rights, for example, until 1931. Historian
Richard Labunski attributes the Bill's long legal dormancy to three factors: first, it took time for a "culture of tolerance" to develop that would support the Bill's provisions with judicial and popular will; second, the Supreme Court spent much of the 19th century focused on issues relating to intergovernmental balances of power; and third, the Bill initially only applied to the federal government, a restriction affirmed by
Barron v. Baltimore (1833). In the 20th century, however, most of the Bill's provisions were applied to the states via the
Fourteenth Amendment—a process known as
incorporation—beginning with the freedom of speech clause, in
Gitlow v. New York (1925). In
Talton v. Mayes (1896), the Court ruled that constitutional protections, including the provisions of the Bill of Rights, do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments. Through the incorporation process the Supreme Court succeeded in extending to the
states almost all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, as well as other, unenumerated rights. The Bill of Rights thus imposes legal limits on the powers of governments and acts as an anti-majoritarian/minoritarian safeguard by providing deeply
entrenched legal protection for various civil liberties and fundamental rights. The Supreme Court for example concluded in the
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) case that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities. As the Court noted, the idea of the Bill of Rights "was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts."
First Amendment The First Amendment prohibits the making of any law
respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the
free exercise of religion, abridging the
freedom of speech, infringing on the
freedom of the press, interfering with the
right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the
petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. Initially, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by Congress, and many of its provisions were interpreted more narrowly than they are today. In
Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Court drew on Thomas Jefferson's correspondence to call for "a wall of separation between church and State", though the precise boundary of this separation remains in dispute. Commercial speech is less protected by the First Amendment than political speech, and is therefore subject to greater regulation. and
New York Times v. United States (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment protected against
prior restraint—pre-publication censorship—in almost all cases. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of government for action. In addition to the right of assembly guaranteed by this clause, the Court has also ruled that the amendment implicitly protects
freedom of association. First codified in the English
Bill of Rights of 1689 (but there only applying to
Protestants), this right was enshrined in fundamental laws of several American states during the Revolutionary era, including the 1776
Virginia Declaration of Rights and the
Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776. Long a
controversial issue in American political, legal, and social discourse, the Second Amendment has been at the heart of several Supreme Court decisions. • In
United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Court ruled that "[t]he right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government." • In
United States v. Miller (1939), the Court ruled that the amendment "[protects arms that had a] reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". • In
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". • In
McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.
Third Amendment The Third Amendment restricts the quartering of soldiers in private homes, in response to
Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the Revolutionary War. The amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution, and, , has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision. The only case deeply involving the Third Amendment to make it to the federal appellate level is the 1982
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case
Engblom v. Carey, which held that
National Guard troops are soldiers for the purposes of the Third Amendment and that the amendment is incorporated against the states.
Fourth Amendment The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable
searches and seizures, along with requiring any
warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by
probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the
writ of assistance, which is a type of general
search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) must be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer who has
sworn by it. The amendment is the basis for the
exclusionary rule, which mandates that evidence obtained illegally cannot be introduced into a criminal trial. The amendment's interpretation has varied over time; its protections expanded under left-leaning courts such as that headed by
Earl Warren and contracted under right-leaning courts such as that of
William Rehnquist.
Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment protects against
double jeopardy and
self-incrimination and guarantees the rights to
due process,
grand jury screening of criminal indictments, and compensation for the seizure of private property under
eminent domain. The amendment was the basis for the court's decision in
Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which established that defendants must be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination prior to interrogation by police; the
Miranda warning.
Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment establishes a number of rights of the defendant in a criminal trial: • to a
speedy and
public trial • to
trial by an impartial jury • to be informed of criminal charges • to
confront witnesses • to compel witnesses to appear in court • to
assistance of counsel Seventh Amendment The Seventh Amendment guarantees jury trials in federal civil cases that deal with claims of more than twenty dollars. It also prohibits judges from overruling findings of fact by juries in federal civil trials. In
Colgrove v. Battin (1973), the Court ruled that the amendment's requirements could be fulfilled by a jury with a minimum of six members. The Seventh is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights not to be
incorporated (applied to the states).
Eighth Amendment The Eighth Amendment forbids the imposition of excessive bails or fines, though it leaves the term "excessive" open to interpretation. The most frequently litigated clause of the amendment is the last, which forbids
cruel and unusual punishment. This clause was only occasionally applied by the Supreme Court prior to the 1970s, generally in cases dealing with means of execution. In
Furman v. Georgia (1972), some members of the Court found
capital punishment itself in violation of the amendment, arguing that the clause could reflect "evolving standards of decency" as public opinion changed; others found certain practices in capital trials to be unacceptably arbitrary, resulting in a majority decision that effectively halted executions in the United States for several years. Executions resumed following
Gregg v. Georgia (1976), which found capital punishment to be constitutional if the jury was directed by concrete sentencing guidelines. This right was, in turn, the foundation upon which the Supreme Court built decisions in several landmark cases, including,
Roe v. Wade (1973), which overturned a Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion, and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which invalidated a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion.
Tenth Amendment The Tenth Amendment reinforces the principles of
separation of powers and
federalism by providing that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. The amendment provides no new powers or rights to the states, but rather preserves their authority in all matters not specifically granted to the federal government nor explicitly forbidden to the states. ==Display and honoring of the Bill of Rights==