Amendments

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/state/amendment-2-voters-asked-to-bring-clarity-to-judicial-selection-process_00824294

After decades arguing among lawyers and politicians over the best way to choose Tennessee’s top judges, voters are being asked to resolve the issue once and for all this fall. The request to voters comes in the form of Amendment 2 on the Nov. 4 ballot. In essence, the Vote Yes on 2 campaign asks voters to officially accept the judicial selection system for 29 state appellate court judges that is already in place. The Vote Yes on 2 campaign is a well-financed and well-organized effort led by Republican Gov. Bill Haslam and his Democratic predecessor, Phil Bredesen. 


http://www.trussvilletribune.com/2014/09/22/the-importance-of-the-14th-amendment/

In legal circles the 14th Amendment is often cited as the amendment with the most profound effect on the rights of everyday citizens. The reason this is so important goes back to the 19th century. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights was deemed to only apply to the federal government and not the states. Beginning in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began using this section of the 14th Amendment to apply the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through a process called “incorporation.”


http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/courtcases

Since Anita Whitney did not base her defense on the First Amendment, the Supreme Court, by a 7 to 2 decision, upheld her conviction of being found guilty under the California’s 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party, a group the state argued taught the violent overthrow of government.


http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_628

In 1996, Linda Frew and other citizens settled a class-action lawsuit in federal district court against the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. Settlement was reached through a consent agree, in which the parties make an agreement that is subject to court supervision. Texas argued that because no federal rights had been violated, suit could not be brought in federal court.