1. Alyssa Fay
2. Morse v. Frederick(2002)
3. This amendment was challanged because, and 18 year old child at a high school was showing his religion by displaying a banner that said, "bong hits 4 jesus".
4. the outcome was that the boy was suspended from the school for 3 days.
5. this affects people today because you are still not allowed t display religion in school. He tried to each a school but got in trouble and did not sucseed.


. 1. Kate Ryan
2. 1928, Olmstead v Untied states
3. Suspested for being a bootlegger(making own beer).
4. He was not guilty, becuase of wiretapping without approvement.
5. This decision showed people that you can't just suspect somoene for doing something unless you have fair evidence.

Lauren Fabiano is doing Brown v board of education, Topeka Kansas-1954-civil rights

1. Mark Donahue doing

2. United States v. Constantine 1935
3. Constantine was convicted of selling illegal liquors during the time that all in-toxicating liquors were banned.
4. constantine lost and the states won.
5. this made it that from then on there was a tax on selling and/or buying liquors.

1. Danny Da Silva
2. Marsh vs. Chambers
3. Ernest Chambers was a member of the Nebraska state legistlature who objected who objected to its Chaplains poloicy.
4. In a 6-3 decision the court decided to permit the practice of beginning a legistlative session with a prayer.
5. This case had a huge impact on america It ga ve legislative sessions the right to begin the sessions with a prayer.

1.Dan Hawk
2.Dillon v. Gloss [1921]
3. Dillon was arrested and convicted, in violation of the national prohibition act of 1919, sections 1, 2, and 3. He appealed on two counts. The first being that the amendment was not passed in the 7 year time frame that congress had set. The second being that even though the amendment was ratified on January 16, 1919, because the amendment was not proclaimed until January 29, 1919, the law wouldn't come into effect until January 29, 1920. The alleged crime was committed January 17, 1920. He was arrested that day.
4. The Supreme Court ruled that the amendment didn't have to be ratified in the time period saying that there was no need for a time frame, and it was just a suggestion that one should be implied. He also lost because the court ruled that the amendment went into effect one year after the date of ratification, not proclamation.
5. This ruling meant that a time frame was not needed while ratifying an amendment. What this means for the country is laws coming into effect earlier.