Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

Encouraging household self-defense primarily drove the framing of this amendment.

A desire to promote hunting and sport shooting dictated this clause’s addition.

Reducing reliance on foreign military assistance steered this policy's formulation.

The necessity to maintain state militias was a key influence in including this amendment.

Both Amendments protect against self-incrimination.

Both Amendments reserve powers not delegated to federal government for states or people.

Third prohibits forced quartering of soldiers in homes during peacetime, whereas Seventh provides for jury trial in civil cases exceeding $20.

The Third Amendment protects freedom of speech, while Seventh guarantees right to bear arms.

The Seventh Amendments

The Sixth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment

The Ninth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment explicitly allows for such programs during times of war or national security concerns.

The Fourth Amendment was used as justification for the NSA surveillance programs.

The Fourth Amendment has no relevance to digital or electronic surveillance.

The NSA surveillance programs raised questions about whether they violated Fourth Amendment rights.

Constitutional amendments related to religious freedom would likely become easier due to a streamlined process requiring fewer checks and balances.

Religious minority rights might be less protected if policies were subject only to popular majority rule rather than constitutional constraints and court interpretations.

State-level Constitutions may offer greater safeguards for religious freedoms independent from federal changes influenced by majority sentiment.

Religious groups could form political parties ensuring representation proportionate to their population size in government bodies.

By promoting isolationism in foreign policy matters.

By proposing limitations on individual freedoms.

By advocating for broader governmental powers with checks and balances.

By suggesting the abolishment of slavery.

Preservation of the status quo regardless of rulership change given deep-seated cultural commitments to the principle of free speech.

Journalists and media outlets may experience more freedom to report critical news due to the lack of a governing document to limit their actions.

Certain speech against the monarchy or government officials would likely be deemed illegal as no First Amendment exists to protect dissent.

Increased activism and legal reforms aiming at establishing some level of free expression similar to that afforded within the Bill of Rights.

Gun Control Advocates

States' Rights Activists

Capitalism Defenders

Free market proponents

States must uniformly apply all aspects as soon as they are added to the Constitution.

States could interpret and apply protections differently until incorporated by Supreme Court decisions.

States are restricted from providing greater protection than outlined in each amendment.

Federal government has no influence over state application before incorporation.

They spark debates around censorship versus free speech online.

They prevent users from expressing their views online completely because they fear legal repercussions from disagreeable posts or comments.

They promote universal acceptance for all types of speech online without restrictions or moderation efforts by platforms like Facebook or Twitter.

They banish any form of political discussion or engagement across social media platforms to avoid controversy.