The  Free Exercise Clause:

A person or group must show (1) that the ritual is motivated by 
"sincere religious belief," and (2) that the state has imposed a 
"substantial burden" on the practice. If these two criteria are met, 
the government must accommodate the religious practice -- unless 
the government can show that it has a "compelling interest" in 
restricting the practice, and that its restriction is the most lenient 
way possible (the "least restrictive means") of serving that interest.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)-- the Court upheld the right of 
Jehovah's Witnesses to proselytize on a street corner

West Virginia v. Barnette (1943)-- the Court ruled that Jehovah's 
Witness children could not be forced to salute the flag in public 
schools

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)-- the Court held that a Seventh Day 
Adventist could not be denied unemployment insurance because 
she refused to work on Saturdays

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)-- the Court overturned the conviction 
of an Amish parent who refused to send his children to school 
beyond the eighth grade.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)-- upheld the denial of 
unemployment benefits to two members of the Native American 
Church who had been fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote --a 
hallucinogen which has been an integral part of Native American 
religious practices for centuries. This ruling eliminated the 
requirement that the government prove a "compelling interest" in 
restricting a religious practice.

Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993)

"(4) in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) the Supreme 
Court virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify 
burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion; and
 (5) the compelling interest test as set forth in prior Federal
  court rulings is a workable test for striking sensible balances
  between religious liberty and competing prior governmental
  interests.

   (b) Purposes: The purposes of this Act are--

   (1) to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in
       Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. 
       Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) and to guarantee its application 
	in all cases where free exercise of religion is
 	substantially burdened; "


City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores (1997)
			Voting 6 to 3 the Supreme Court struck
                        down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as 		
			unconstitutional.

14th Amendment			
"Section 1. . . . No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge 
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any 
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of 
law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of 
the laws. . . . . . 

    "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate 
legislation, the provisions of this article."


From the majority opinion in Texas v. Flores:

"The design of the Amendment and the text of Section 5 are inconsistent 
with the suggestion that Congress has the power to decree the 
substance of the Fourteenth Amendment's restrictions on the States. 
Legislation which alters the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause 
cannot be said to be enforcing the Clause. Congress does not enforce 
a constitutional right by changing what the right is. It has been 
given the power "to enforce," not the power to determine what 
constitutes a constitutional violation. Were it not so, what 
Congress would be enforcing would no longer be, in any meaningful 
sense, the "provisions of [the Fourteenth Amendment]."


Freedom of the Press:

Near v. Minnesota (1931)--"prior restraint" was 
unconstitutional.

Exceptions: 	national security
		regulating obscenity
		prohibiting expression that would incite acts 	
	of violence.

New York Times v. United States (1971)--The 
Pentagon Papers




Second Amendment--
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the 
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep 
and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Fourth Amendment--Search and Seizure

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)--exclusionary rule.
Exceptions to the exclusionary rule:
1) Good faith
2) Clear view
3) Hot pursuit
4) Inevitable Discovery


Fifth Amendment--
Provides for grand jury indictments
Prohibits Double Jeopardy
Protects against self-incrimination
Guarantees "due process"

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Sixth Amendment--
Right to public trial
Right to trial by jury
Right to confront witnesses
Right to counsel

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Seventh Amendment--
Guarantees the right to trial by jury in a 
civil suit in which the value and 
controversy exceeds $20.00

Eighth Amendment--
1)  Excessive bail shall not be set.
2)  Excessive fines shall not be set.
3)  No cruel and unusual punishment.

Furman v. Georgia (1972)
Gregg v. Georgia (1976)


Ninth Amendment and Tenth Amendment:
Right to Privacy--
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Roe v. Wade (1972)