Constitutional Amendments And First Amendment Rights
-
The process of officially changing the U.S. Constitution is called...
-
Lawmaking.
-
Formal Amendment.
-
Regulation.
-
Informal Amendment.
-
A short online quiz about amending the U. S. Constitution, the Amendments and the Bill of Rights.
Quiz Preview
- 2.
How many times has the U.S. Constitution been officially changed?
-
10
-
25
-
27
-
34
Correct Answer
A. 27Explanation
The U.S. Constitution has been officially changed 27 times. The Constitution includes a process for making amendments, which requires approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. These amendments have been added to address various issues and concerns since the Constitution was first ratified in 1788. Some notable amendments include the Bill of Rights, which guarantees individual freedoms, and the 19th Amendment, which granted women the right to vote. The 27 amendments reflect the evolving needs and values of the American people over time.Rate this question:
-
- 3.
The first 10 Amendments are known as
-
The Bill of Rights.
-
The Separate but Equal.
-
The Five Freedoms.
-
Free Exercises.
Correct Answer
A. The Bill of Rights.Explanation
The correct answer is "The Bill of Rights." The Bill of Rights refers to the first 10 Amendments of the United States Constitution. These amendments were added to protect individual rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the right to a fair trial. The Bill of Rights is considered a crucial part of the Constitution and has had a significant impact on shaping American democracy and the protection of civil liberties.Rate this question:
-
- 4.
An official change in the U.S. Constitution has almost always started with...
-
The President proposing the change.
-
The States asking Congress to make the change.
-
The Supreme Court declaring a law unconstitutional.
-
2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress.
Correct Answer
A. 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress.Explanation
An official change in the U.S. Constitution has almost always started with a 2/3 vote of both Houses of Congress. This means that in order to propose a change to the Constitution, two-thirds of the members in both the House of Representatives and the Senate must vote in favor of the proposed amendment. This requirement ensures that any proposed changes to the Constitution have significant support from the legislative branch of government, which represents the interests and perspectives of the American people.Rate this question:
-
- 5.
Once the Federal proposed change in the Constitution has been passed, then the change must be...
-
Signed or vetoed by the President.
-
Approved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
-
Ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.
-
Voted on by the people of each of 3/4 of the States.
Correct Answer
A. Ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures.Explanation
After a proposed change in the Constitution is passed at the federal level, it must be ratified by 3/4 of the State Legislatures. This means that at least 38 out of 50 states must approve the change before it can become a part of the Constitution. The President does not have the power to sign or veto constitutional amendments, and the U.S. Supreme Court does not have the authority to approve or reject them. The people of each state do not directly vote on constitutional amendments, but rather their state legislators make the decision on whether to ratify the proposed change.Rate this question:
-
- 6.
The First Amendment is said to have Five Freedoms. Which of the five has two parts that present two different "clauses"?
-
Religion.
-
Speech.
-
Press.
-
Assembly.
Correct Answer
A. Religion.Explanation
The First Amendment guarantees the freedom of religion, which includes two distinct clauses. The first clause is the "establishment clause," which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion or favoring one religion over another. The second clause is the "free exercise clause," which ensures that individuals have the right to practice their religion freely without interference from the government. These two clauses work together to protect religious freedom in the United States.Rate this question:
-
- 7.
The case of Engel v. Vitale involved
-
Religious and Parochial Schools.
-
School prayer.
-
Snake handling.
-
Free Speech.
Correct Answer
A. School prayer.Explanation
The case of Engel v. Vitale involved the issue of school prayer. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for public schools to engage in prayer, even if the prayer was voluntary and not tied to any specific religion. The Court held that such prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing or endorsing a religion. This landmark case established the principle of separation of church and state in public schools.Rate this question:
-
- 8.
Marbury v. Madison was a case that stands for the concept of
-
Free exercise of religion.
-
No unwarranted searches.
-
No establishment of religion.
-
Judicial review by the Supreme Court.
Correct Answer
A. Judicial review by the Supreme Court.Explanation
Marbury v. Madison was a landmark case that established the principle of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this case, the Supreme Court asserted its power to declare laws unconstitutional, thereby allowing the Court to review and potentially overturn acts of Congress. This decision solidified the Court's role as the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution and significantly strengthened the checks and balances system in the United States.Rate this question:
-
- 9.
The first 10 words of the First Amendment say "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." These words mean that there must be...
-
No prayers in school.
-
A separation of church and state.
-
Free exercise of religion.
-
No Congressional prayers or chaplains.
Correct Answer
A. A separation of church and state.Explanation
The first 10 words of the First Amendment state that Congress cannot make any laws regarding the establishment of religion. This means that there must be a separation of church and state, where the government does not favor or promote any particular religion. This ensures that individuals have the freedom to practice their own religion without interference from the government.Rate this question:
-
- 10.
A person may practice or have free exercise of their religious beliefs as long as they
-
Truly believe in what they are doing.
-
Have an official religion, recognized by the majority.
-
Practice their religion in a church, synagogue, temple, or mosque.
-
Do not injure others or break laws with their religious practices.
Correct Answer
A. Do not injure others or break laws with their religious practices.Explanation
The correct answer is "do not injure others or break laws with their religious practices." This answer aligns with the principle of religious freedom, which allows individuals to practice their religious beliefs as long as they do not harm others or violate any laws. This ensures that individuals have the freedom to exercise their faith while also respecting the rights and safety of others in society.Rate this question:
-
- 11.
Government aid ($) to religious or parochial schools is ok only as far as
-
The aid does not help the religious teaching in the school.
-
It helps only one religion.
-
People approve the help for the school with a vote of the school board.
-
No one objects to the aid.
Correct Answer
A. The aid does not help the religious teaching in the school.Explanation
The correct answer is "the aid does not help the religious teaching in the school." This means that government aid to religious or parochial schools is acceptable as long as the financial support does not contribute to or promote religious teachings within the school. This ensures that the aid is used solely for educational purposes and does not infringe upon the separation of church and state.Rate this question:
-
- 12.
The Lemon Test, which comes from the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, permits government involvement in religion as long as there is not...
-
Separation of church and state.
-
A clear and present danger.
-
Excessive entanglement.
-
Student protest.
-
A yellow sour flavor to the law.
Correct Answer
A. Excessive entanglement.Explanation
The Lemon Test, derived from the Lemon v. Kurtzman case, establishes the criteria for determining whether government involvement in religion is permissible. According to this test, government actions are allowed as long as they do not result in excessive entanglement between religion and the state. This means that the government should not become excessively involved in religious affairs or favor one religion over others. The test aims to ensure that there is a clear separation between church and state to prevent the establishment of a state religion. Therefore, the correct answer is excessive entanglement.Rate this question:
-
- 13.
A person has the right to freedom of speech as long as their speech...
-
Doesn't present a clear and present danger of harm.
-
Doesn't offend anyone.
-
Doesn't swear or use four letter words.
-
Is totally true.
Correct Answer
A. Doesn't present a clear and present danger of harm.Explanation
The correct answer is "doesn't present a clear and present danger of harm." This answer aligns with the concept of freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. While freedom of speech is protected, there are limitations when the speech poses a clear and present danger, such as inciting violence or endangering public safety. This ensures that individuals can express their opinions and ideas without causing harm to others or society as a whole.Rate this question:
-
- 14.
The case of Tinker v. Des Moines Board of Education stands for the idea that speech may be...
-
Hateful.
-
Anti-war.
-
Symbolic.
-
Not free in a school setting.
Correct Answer
A. Symbolic.Explanation
The case of Tinker v. Des Moines Board of Education established the principle that speech in schools is protected by the First Amendment unless it causes a substantial disruption to the educational environment. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the wearing of armbands by students to protest the Vietnam War was a form of symbolic speech and therefore protected. This landmark decision affirmed that students have the right to express their opinions and beliefs through symbolic acts, as long as it does not disrupt the functioning of the school.Rate this question:
-
- 15.
Violent protests on May Day in Seattle, Washington, would not be constitutionally protected because they were not
-
Symbolic.
-
Peaceful assembly.
-
Religious.
-
Involving church and state.
Correct Answer
A. Peaceful assembly.Explanation
The correct answer is peaceful assembly. Violent protests on May Day in Seattle, Washington, would not be constitutionally protected because they were not peaceful assembly. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to peacefully assemble, but it does not protect violent or disruptive protests. While individuals have the right to express their grievances and engage in peaceful demonstrations, violence and destruction of property are not protected forms of expression. Therefore, any protests that turn violent would not be constitutionally protected.Rate this question:
-
- 16.
What is meant by "no prior restraint" of the press?
-
Government must approve all publication prior to printing.
-
Government will not even try to stop something being printed.
-
Top secret documents cannot be printed before government approval.
-
The government cannot stop something from being printed, but can prosecute afterwards.
Correct Answer
A. The government cannot stop something from being printed, but can prosecute afterwards.Explanation
"No prior restraint" of the press means that the government cannot prevent or stop something from being printed or published. However, it does not mean that the government cannot take legal action or prosecute after the publication if it violates any laws or regulations. This ensures freedom of the press while still holding individuals accountable for any potential legal violations.Rate this question:
-
- 17.
Which Amendment has been in the news because Congress and the President wish to pass a gun control law?
-
1st Amendment.
-
2nd Amendment.
-
3rd Amendment.
-
4th Amendment.
Correct Answer
A. 2nd Amendment.Explanation
The 2nd Amendment has been in the news because Congress and the President wish to pass a gun control law. This amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. The debate over gun control often revolves around interpreting and implementing this amendment, making it a topic of discussion and controversy in the news.Rate this question:
-
- 18.
Mapp v. Ohio is a case that stands for the _______________rule.
-
Free exercise.
-
No prior restraint.
-
Exclusionary.
-
Separation of church and state.
Correct Answer
A. Exclusionary.Explanation
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case that established the exclusionary rule. This rule states that evidence obtained by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be used in a criminal trial. The case involved the illegal search of Dollree Mapp's home by the police, who found obscene materials. The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence was obtained unlawfully and therefore could not be used against Mapp. This decision expanded the rights of individuals and set an important precedent for protecting against illegal searches and seizures.Rate this question:
-
- 19.
The Fourth Amendment bans searches and seizures without a warrant describing...
-
The place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
-
The clear and present danger from the activity.
-
Who is doing the search.
-
What crime will be solved by the search.
Correct Answer
A. The place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.Explanation
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits searches and seizures without a warrant, which must specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. This means that law enforcement officials cannot conduct searches or confiscate property without a warrant that clearly outlines the location and the items or individuals they are looking for. This protection ensures that individuals have a right to privacy and guards against arbitrary invasions by the government.Rate this question:
-
Quiz Review Timeline (Updated): Mar 20, 2023 +
Our quizzes are rigorously reviewed, monitored and continuously updated by our expert board to maintain accuracy, relevance, and timeliness.
-
Current Version
-
Mar 20, 2023Quiz Edited by
ProProfs Editorial Team -
May 05, 2013Quiz Created by
NorrisJ
Back to top