Government/amendment question for homework?

[tripp]

My teacher gave us some scenarios, and we have to decide if they are constitutional or not by saying:
-if they are a right or amendment
-violation or no violation
-and why?

here are a couple...any ideas?

1.The Illinois Gneral Assembly passed a law requiring a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day.

2. Upset by the outcome of the presidential election and hoping to start a riot, a group of students stood outside the school handing out flyers encouraging atudents to purposefully disobey government laws and school policies.

3.After obtaining a proper warrant, the police search a man's house for illegal drugs. While in the house, the police find other, unrelated stolen merchandise. The police use this evidence to charge the man with possession of stolen merchandise.

4. A man living on a quiet residential street erects a giant billboard with neon lights on his front lawn to sell advertising space. The city demands that it be removed becuase it violates an existing zoning law.

[elton]

1 This may or may not be in violation of the US constitution, while it is true that our first amendment provides for freedom of speech and expression the same constitution also provides for the right of the states to manage themselves as they see fit, and in this case you have not specified whether this is to apply to all schools or only those in the public school system. That can have a pronounced impact on constitutionality.

2. Again, it may or may not be unconstitutional, though the way in which this one is phrased tends to suggest that it would be constitutional. The law on this matter is whether or not the material would incite a group to action in a manner detrimental to one's life or limb. In this case it does not appear that the group is out to incite any immediate violence, which means that their actions are thus far protected by the first amendment, however if the demonstration does turn violent then the first amendment will not protect the students.

3. This could in fact be legal. Its called something like the 'plain site' rule, which stipulates that if illegal material is discovered in plain site the officers can arrest and charge for it. If it is not, then it may still be legal for the police to arrest the man if they take the proper actions to either have the warrant amended to include the stolen property (ie, if the stolen property cell phones then an amendment to the warrant stipulating the addition of electronic material to be searched and seized). In some places possession of stolen goods is a crime, and this could be justification for the arrest of the person. Lastly, if the person was already on parole this could be viewed as a violation of the terms of said parole, justifying an arrest.

4. This one is a toss up. Technically, the person is exercising their 1st amendment right to freedom of speech and expression, which puts the billboard under the protection of the US constitution, however the 10th amendment that reserves certain rights to the states seems to protect the state in its demand that the sign be taken down for violating zoning laws. Ultimately, I think this one would come down to which of the two amendments the courts would hold had the higher precedent.

[cumhea]

1. violates 1st amendment freedom of speech. he cannot make a law that forces someone not to speak.
2. it is not a violation because the 1st amendment allows the right to peaceful assembly

the next one is pretty difficult
3. I guess this one is the only difficult one. I would say that it isn't a violation, because maybe the police weren't intending to search for the stolen merchandise (4th amendment right to privacy limits the power of a search warrant to search for the things specified) but then again the police might not have intended to find it but found it on accident. I would guess that it isn't a violation but explain this logic! :)
4. the city can remove it because the government has power through the 5th amendment's "eminent domain" which basically gives government the right to take property for a reasonable cause (which has been abused over the years)

ok 3rd and 4th one im not so sure!