United States Bill of Rights (English Wikipedia)

Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "United States Bill of Rights" in English language version.

refsWebsite
Global rank English rank
1st place
1st place
6th place
6th place
405th place
256th place
3rd place
3rd place
696th place
428th place
446th place
308th place
low place
low place
230th place
214th place
40th place
58th place
70th place
63rd place
1,478th place
868th place
555th place
467th place
1,360th place
845th place
low place
low place
low place
low place
2,619th place
2,163rd place
565th place
460th place
1,648th place
1,137th place
1,045th place
746th place
5,482nd place
3,140th place
3,811th place
2,160th place
1,538th place
1,042nd place
7th place
7th place
28th place
26th place
6,211th place
3,772nd place
low place
low place
low place
8,953rd place
791st place
550th place
59th place
45th place

aclu.org

americanhistoryusa.com

  • Bryan, Dan (April 8, 2012). "The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and its Effects". American History USA. Retrieved February 23, 2023.

archive.org

archives.gov

archives.gov

founders.archives.gov

prologue.blogs.archives.gov

books.google.com

britannica.com

cnn.com

constitutioncenter.org

  • "Bill of Rights FAQs" (PDF). constitutioncenter.org. National Constitution Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 3, 2016. Retrieved February 19, 2016.

csmonitor.com

findlaw.com

writ.news.findlaw.com

laws.findlaw.com

  • West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, Majority Opinion, item 3 (US 1943) (""The very purpose of a 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. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."").

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com

fordham.edu

ir.lawnet.fordham.edu

gpo.gov

heritage.org

highbeam.com

history.com

justia.com

supreme.justia.com

  • In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897), the United States Supreme Court stated that there are exceptions for the civil liberties and fundamental rights secured by the Bill of Rights: "The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Article I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Article II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial."[90]
  • "Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore – 32 U.S. 243 (1833)". Justia.com. Archived from the original on May 21, 2013. Retrieved July 11, 2013.
  • New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
  • Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
  • New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
  • 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
  • 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
  • "McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)". Justia Law. Retrieved February 23, 2023.

loc.gov

loc.gov

guides.loc.gov

ncdcr.gov

news.google.com

nytimes.com

revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com

supremecourt.gov

teachingamericanhistory.org

uchicago.edu

press-pubs.uchicago.edu

unc.edu

scholarship.law.unc.edu

usmarshals.gov

web.archive.org

wisc.edu

csac.history.wisc.edu

yale.edu

avalon.law.yale.edu