U.S. Government · Unit 1 · Lesson 4 · 美國政治 單元一 第四課
Choose an amendment and watch a shield rise between a person and the government it restrains. Then drag a timeline from 1791 to 1975 to see when each protection came to bind the states as well as the national government. Read Madison and the flag-salute case of 1943, and sort out who the Bill of Rights actually limits.
選一條修正案，看一面盾牌立在一個人和它所限制的政府之間。再把時間軸從 1791 年拉到 1975 年，看每一項保障從哪一年起不只拘束全國政府、也拘束各州。讀麥迪遜與 1943 年的升旗敬禮案，再弄清楚權利法案到底限制的是誰。
The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government may not do. It restrains government, not private persons. At first it restrained only the national government; after the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868, the courts applied its guarantees to the states one by one. None of these rights is absolute, and courts decide where their limits lie.
權利法案是一張寫給政府的「不得」清單。它限制的是政府，不是私人。起初它只限制全國政府；1868 年第十四條修正案之後，法院才一條一條把這些保障適用到各州。這些權利沒有一項是絕對的，界線在哪裡由法院判斷。
3D Model · 3D 模型
Behind are the buildings of the national government; on the right is a state capitol; in front stands a person. Choose an amendment. Two arrows, standing for government action, fly toward the person: gold from the national government, green from the state. Where the amendment protects the person, a shield rises and the arrow stops. Drag the timeline: before 1791 there is no shield at all, and for most rights the state's arrow gets through until the year the Supreme Court applied that right to the states.
後面是全國政府的建築，右邊是一棟州議會大廈，前面站著一個人。選一條修正案：兩道代表「政府作為」的箭頭飛向這個人——金色的來自全國政府，綠色的來自州。這一條保護得到的那一邊，會立起一面盾牌，箭頭停在盾牌前。拉動時間軸：1791 年以前根本沒有盾牌；大多數權利，州的箭頭一直穿得過去，直到最高法院把那項權利適用到各州的那一年。
Drag to look around · 拖曳轉動視角 Scroll or pinch to zoom · 滾輪／雙指縮放
This 3D model needs WebGL, which this browser does not support. The buttons, the panel, and the timeline still work, and so do the reading and the two activities below.
這個瀏覽器不支援 WebGL，無法顯示 3D 模型；按鈕、說明欄和時間軸照樣能用，下面的課文和兩個小互動也都能用。
Choose an amendment · 選一條修正案
Drag along the line, or tap a dot · 沿著線拖曳，或點一個圓點
A diagram of an idea, not of any real case. The timeline ends in 1975: most of the Bill of Rights was applied to the states between 1925 and 1969, and later developments are outside this lesson. Each amendment lists the cases that applied parts of it to the states; the state shield appears with the first of them, even when other parts came later.
這是一個概念的示意圖，不代表任何真實的案件。時間軸只到 1975 年：權利法案大部分的條文是在 1925 到 1969 年間適用到各州的，之後的發展不在這一課的範圍。每一條修正案列出把它某些部分適用到各州的案子；州的盾牌在第一個案子出現，即使其他部分是後來才適用的。
Reading · 英文閱讀 High school and up · 高中以上
A bill of rights is a list of things the government may not do. The Constitution of 1787 had none, and that absence was one of the main objections of its opponents during ratification. James Madison, who had defended the Constitution in The Federalist, introduced amendments in the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789. Congress sent twelve to the states that September, and ten were ratified by December 1791. They are written as commands to the government. The First Amendment does not say “people have freedom of speech”; it says “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech.” The rights are described as things the government must leave alone.
The ten amendments cover several kinds of protection. The First protects religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and petitions to the government. The Second is quoted in the model without discussion of its meaning, and the Third forbids quartering soldiers in private homes in peacetime without the owner's consent. The Fourth through the Eighth deal mostly with how the government may treat people it suspects or accuses of crimes: no unreasonable searches, no forcing a person to testify against himself, no trying a person twice for the same offense, a speedy and public trial by jury, the help of a lawyer, and no excessive bail or cruel and unusual punishments.
The last two amendments are different. The Ninth answers a worry raised during ratification, that listing some rights might suggest that the people had no others. It says that the listing of certain rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The Tenth, which Lesson 3 discussed, is about powers rather than rights: what was not delegated to the United States stays with the states or the people. Together they show the theory behind the whole list. The people keep everything they did not give away, and the list marks some of the most important things the government is not allowed to touch.
One point is easy to miss. The Bill of Rights restrains government, not private persons. A city that punishes a speaker, a public school that compels a student to recite a pledge, and a police officer who searches a house without a warrant are all governments acting, so the Constitution applies. A private company that fires an employee for a speech, or a newspaper that refuses to print a letter, is not the government, and the First Amendment does not reach it, although other laws may. Lawyers call this the state action requirement: a constitutional right is a claim against the state, meaning the government at any level.
At first, “the government” meant only the national government. In Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, a wharf owner argued that the city of Baltimore had taken his property without compensation, contrary to the Fifth Amendment. Chief Justice John Marshall replied that the amendments limited the government of the United States and not the governments of the states. For decades afterward, a state could restrict speech or religion without violating the federal Bill of Rights, and people had to rely on their own state constitutions. That changed only after the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, when the country rewrote the relationship between the nation, the states, and the people.
The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, says that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Over many decades the Supreme Court read its word “liberty” to include most of the Bill of Rights, and so applied those guarantees to the states. Lawyers call this incorporation. It happened one right at a time. The duty to pay for property taken for public use came early, in 1897. Freedom of speech followed in 1925, and most of the protections for people accused of crimes followed in the 1960s. A few provisions, such as the Third Amendment and the right to a jury in civil cases, have never been applied to the states.
None of these rights is absolute, and courts decide where the limits lie. In 1943 the Supreme Court held that a public school could not force students to salute the flag. In 1969 it held that students who wore black armbands to school were protected, because students do not shed their rights “at the schoolhouse gate,” although a school may restrict speech that would materially and substantially interfere with its work. To judge such limits, courts use different standards. Under the strictest, the government must show that a law serves a compelling interest and is narrowly drawn. Under the mildest, a law needs only a reasonable connection to a legitimate purpose.
Who should have the final say on the reach of these rights has been argued since 1789. Courts decide cases, but legislatures pass laws that protect rights further, and the people can amend the Constitution, as they did after the Civil War. Many questions about the Bill of Rights remain deeply contested in American public life, and this series does not take sides on them. What it can show is the framework: a written list of limits on government, a clause that carried those limits to the states, and a long history of courts, legislatures, and citizens arguing about what the words require.
Questions · 閱讀理解
Why are the amendments written as limits on the government (“Congress shall make no law…”) rather than as grants of rights to the people? What theory of rights does that wording reflect?
Explain the difference between Barron v. Baltimore (1833) and the process of incorporation after 1868. Why did it matter which government a right restrained?
Give one example of government action and one of private action from the reading, and explain why the First Amendment applies to one but not the other.
Words & Phrases · 生字及片語
Quick Check · 小測驗
1. A private employer fires a worker for something the worker said at a public meeting. Why does the First Amendment not decide the case?
2. In 1833 Barron v. Baltimore held that the Fifth Amendment did not apply to a city. What was the reasoning?
3. Why is incorporation described as happening “one right at a time”?
4. The Ninth Amendment says that listing certain rights shall not be read to deny others. Which worry does that answer?
5. In 1969 the Supreme Court protected students who wore black armbands but said schools may restrict speech that would materially and substantially interfere with their work. What does this show?
Try It in the Model · 在模型裡試試
Then try the others. For each amendment, move the timeline until the green shield appears, and notice which ones never get one before 1975.
接著試試其他各條。每一條都拉動時間軸，看綠色的盾牌什麼時候出現；也注意哪幾條到 1975 年都沒有。
In 1800 the First Amendment blocks the national government only, and the state's arrow gets through. In 1925 a second shield begins to rise: the Court assumes that freedom of speech restrains the states as well.
1800 年，第一條修正案只擋得住全國政府，州的箭頭照樣穿過去。到了 1925 年，第二面盾牌開始立起：最高法院假定言論自由也拘束各州。
Step from 1940 into the 1960s: a public trial reaches the states in 1948, the right to a lawyer in 1963, and the protection against self-incrimination in 1964. Most protections for people accused of crimes were applied in the 1960s.
從 1940 年走到 1960 年代：公開審判在 1948 年擴及各州，律師協助權在 1963 年，不自證己罪在 1964 年。保護刑事被告的大部分規定，都是在 1960 年代適用到各州的。
The Fourteenth Amendment speaks to the states: its key sentence begins “No State shall.” Before 1868 it does not exist; after 1868 its shield stands in front of the state, not the national government.
第十四條修正案是對各州說話的：它的關鍵句一開頭就是「任何一州都不得」。1868 年以前它不存在；1868 年以後，它的盾牌立在州的前面，而不是全國政府的前面。
The Ninth and Tenth do not block a particular action. They tell us how to read the rest: the list is not complete, and powers not given away remain with the states or the people.
第九條和第十條並不擋住某一種特定的作為，而是告訴我們怎麼讀其他各條：這張清單並不完整，沒有交出去的權力留給各州或人民。
Try It · 動手試試
Eight situations. For each one, decide whether the Constitution's rights apply, because the government is acting, or whether they do not, because the actor is private. There is no timer, and you can keep choosing until you find it.
八個情境。每一題判斷：憲法上的權利適用嗎（因為是政府在行動）？還是不適用（因為行動的是私人）？不計時，可以一直選到對為止。
1 of 8 · 第 1 題（共 8 題）
Right on the first try · 第一次就答對 0 / 0
Try It · 動手試試
Ten protections. For each one, choose the amendment that contains it. There is no timer, and the game counts the ones you place on the first try.
十項保障。每一題選出它寫在哪一條修正案。不計時，遊戲會記下你第一次就放對的題數。
1 of 10 · 第 1 題（共 10 題）
Right on the first try · 第一次就答對 0 / 0
What Does the Text Say? · 條文怎麼寫？
The words are copied from the National Archives transcriptions; the Bill of Rights keeps the capitalization and punctuation of the 1789 enrolled resolution.
原文照美國國家檔案館的謄本逐字抄錄；權利法案保留 1789 年正式決議文本的大寫與標點。
First Amendment (1791)第一條修正案（1791）
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.國會不得制定下列法律：涉及設立國教、或禁止宗教自由實踐的法律；剝奪言論或出版自由的法律；或剝奪人民和平集會以及向政府請願申冤之權利的法律。
It begins with “Congress.” For more than a century it was read to restrain only the national government, and it reached the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.它的第一個字是「國會」。一百多年來，它被理解為只限制全國政府；後來才透過第十四條修正案適用到各州。
Ninth Amendment (1791)第九條修正案（1791）
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.本憲法列舉某些權利，不得解釋為否定或貶低人民所保有的其他權利。
This answers the Federalist objection that a list would imply the people had no other rights. Which unlisted rights courts should recognize has been argued ever since.這一條回應了聯邦派的反對理由：列一張清單，會讓人以為人民沒有別的權利。至於法院該承認哪些沒有列出的權利，從那時起就一直有爭論。
Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 (1868)第十四條修正案第一項（1868）
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.凡在合眾國出生或歸化、並受其管轄的人，都是合眾國及其所居住之州的公民。任何一州都不得制定或執行剝奪合眾國公民之特權或豁免權的法律；任何一州未經正當法律程序，都不得剝奪任何人的生命、自由或財產；也不得對其管轄範圍內的任何人，拒絕給予法律的平等保護。
Notice the repeated “No State” and “nor shall any State.” Where the First Amendment speaks to Congress, this section speaks to the states.注意反覆出現的「任何一州都不得」。第一條修正案對國會說話，這一項則是對各州說話。
Read the Source · 讀原典
Two texts 154 years apart. In 1789 Madison told the House why amendments were worth adding. In 1943 the Supreme Court explained what a bill of rights is for. Read each slowly before you open the translation; the spelling is that of the sources.
兩段相隔 154 年的文字。1789 年，麥迪遜向眾議院說明為什麼值得加上修正案；1943 年，最高法院說明一部權利法案是做什麼用的。先慢慢讀一遍，再打開中譯；拼法照出處原樣。
Speech in Congress, 1789 · 1789 年的國會演說
James Madison, in the House of Representatives, June 8, 1789.麥迪遜，1789 年 6 月 8 日於眾議院。
I know some respectable characters who opposed this government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.
If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights.
我知道有些可敬的人士是基於這些理由反對這個政府的；但我相信，反對它的廣大民眾之所以不喜歡它，是因為它沒有有效的規定防止特定的權利受到侵犯，也沒有那些他們長久以來習慣於擋在自己與行使主權的官員之間的保障；只要還有許多同胞認為這些保障是必要的，我們就不該認為他們是安全的。
如果把這些權利寫進憲法，獨立的司法法庭就會特別把自己看成這些權利的守護者；它們會成為一道堅不可摧的堡壘，抵擋立法或行政部門每一次的擅權；它們自然會抵抗每一次對權利宣言在憲法中明文規定之權利的侵犯。
Text as given by Founders Online (National Archives), from The Papers of James Madison. The two paragraphs come from different parts of the speech. Public domain. The Chinese translation is ours.原文依 Founders Online（美國國家檔案館）收錄的《麥迪遜文集》；兩段出自演說的不同部分。公有領域。中譯為本站所譯。 Founders Online: Amendments to the Constitution, 8 June 1789 ↗
Hard words · 難字
Three questions for a close reading · 三個導讀問題
Supreme Court opinion, 1943 · 1943 年的最高法院判決
Opinion of the Court by Justice Robert H. Jackson, June 14, 1943. The Court held that a state could not require public school students to salute the flag and recite the pledge, overruling a decision it had made three years earlier.傑克森大法官撰寫的法院意見，1943 年 6 月 14 日。最高法院判定州不得要求公立學校學生向國旗敬禮、背誦效忠誓詞，並推翻了它三年前的一項判決。
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.
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.
權利法案的根本目的，就是要把某些事項從政治爭議的變化無常中抽離出來，放在多數人與官員搆不到的地方，把它們確立為由法院適用的法律原則。一個人的生命、自由與財產的權利，言論自由、出版自由、信仰與集會自由，以及其他基本權利，不能交付表決；它們不取決於任何一場選舉的結果。
如果我們憲法的星座裡有哪一顆恆星，那就是：沒有任何官員——不論高低——可以規定在政治、民族主義、宗教或其他意見問題上什麼才是正統，也不能強迫公民用言語或行動表白他們對此的信仰。
Text from the Cornell Legal Information Institute's copy of the opinion. Public domain. The Chinese translation is ours.原文依康乃爾大學法律資訊研究所收錄的判決書。公有領域。中譯為本站所譯。 Cornell LII: West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 ↗
Hard words · 難字
Three questions for a close reading · 三個導讀問題
The Design Debate · 制度的爭論
In 1787 and 1788 Americans argued over whether the new Constitution needed a bill of rights at all. Both sides wanted rights protected; they disagreed about whether a written list would protect them or endanger them. Each side is stated here in its strongest form, and the card does not choose between them.
1787 與 1788 年，美國人爭論新憲法到底需不需要權利法案。兩邊都想保護權利，分歧在於：一張寫下來的清單，究竟是保護權利，還是危害權利。這裡把兩邊各用最強的版本寫出來，不替它們分高下。
Is a constitution that gives the government only limited powers better served by a written list of rights, or without one?一部只給政府有限權力的憲法，是加上一張寫明的權利清單比較好，還是不要清單比較好？
One position · 一種立場
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous.Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 84 (1788)我要更進一步斷言：照他們所主張的那種意義與範圍，權利法案在擬議的憲法中不但沒有必要，甚至是危險的。——漢彌爾頓，《聯邦論》第八十四篇（1788）
Another position · 另一種立場
Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse or rest on inference.Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787容我補充：權利法案是人民有權對世上每一個政府——不論是全國的還是地方的——要求的東西，也是任何正當的政府都不該拒絕、也不該只憑推論來處理的東西。——傑佛遜致麥迪遜的信，1787 年 12 月 20 日
The outcome drew on both: a list was added, and the Ninth Amendment was written to answer the worry that the list would be read as complete. Madison, who introduced the amendments, had argued alongside Hamilton for ratification. Which of the arguments above do you find strongest, and do any of them apply to a constitution you know?結果兩邊的考量都用上了：清單加上去了，同時寫了第九條修正案來回應「清單會被當成完整」的憂慮。提出這些修正案的麥迪遜，曾經和漢彌爾頓並肩為批准憲法辯護。上面的論點裡，你覺得哪幾個最有力？有沒有哪一個也適用於你所知道的某一部憲法？
Compare with Taiwan · 和台灣比一比
This card compares designs only. It quotes the Constitution of the Republic of China from the official Laws and Regulations Database and does not say which arrangement is better.
這張卡只比制度的設計，條文引自全國法規資料庫的《中華民國憲法》；不評價哪一種安排比較好。
| Topic · 項目 | United States美國 | Republic of China (Taiwan)中華民國（台灣） |
|---|---|---|
| Where the rights are written權利寫在哪裡 | Added after the original text, as the first ten amendments (1791), with later amendments such as the Fourteenth (1868).在原始條文之後追加，成為前十條修正案（1791），後來又有第十四條（1868）等修正案。 | In the body of the Constitution itself: Chapter II, “Rights and Duties of the People,” Articles 7 to 24.寫在憲法本文之中：第二章「人民之權利義務」，第 7 條至第 24 條。 |
| Rights that are not listed沒有列出的權利 | The Ninth Amendment: listing some rights shall not be read to deny others retained by the people.第九條修正案：列舉某些權利，不得解釋為否定人民保有的其他權利。 | Article 22: other freedoms and rights not detrimental to social order or public welfare are guaranteed under the Constitution.第 22 條：人民之其他自由及權利，不妨害社會秩序公共利益者，均受憲法之保障。 |
| When rights may be limited權利什麼時候可以限制 | The amendments do not say. Courts have developed standards of review, such as strict scrutiny, to judge each limit.修正案沒有寫。法院發展出審查標準（例如嚴格審查）來判斷每一項限制。 | Article 23 states the test in the text: only by law, and only where necessary to prevent infringing others' freedoms, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order, or to advance public welfare.第 23 條把標準寫進條文：只能以法律限制，而且必須是為防止妨礙他人自由、避免緊急危難、維持社會秩序或增進公共利益所必要。 |
| Who interprets誰來解釋 | Ordinary courts decide rights cases, with the Supreme Court at the top; the power of review is not stated in the text.一般法院審理權利案件，最上面是最高法院；審查的權力條文沒有明寫。 | The Judicial Yuan interprets the Constitution (Article 78).司法院解釋憲法（第 78 條）。 |
中華民國憲法 第 22 條Constitution of the Republic of China, Article 22
凡人民之其他自由及權利，不妨害社會秩序公共利益者，均受憲法之保障。Official English translation: “All other freedoms and rights of the people that are not detrimental to social order or public welfare shall be guaranteed under the Constitution.”
全國法規資料庫：中華民國憲法 ↗Laws & Regulations Database: Constitution (English) ↗
中華民國憲法 第 23 條Constitution of the Republic of China, Article 23
以上各條列舉之自由權利，除為防止妨礙他人自由、避免緊急危難、維持社會秩序，或增進公共利益所必要者外，不得以法律限制之。Official English translation: “All the freedoms and rights enumerated in the preceding Articles shall not be restricted by law except by such as may be necessary to prevent infringement upon the freedoms of other persons, to avert an imminent crisis, to maintain social order or to advance public welfare.”
全國法規資料庫：中華民國憲法 ↗Laws & Regulations Database: Constitution (English) ↗
Two things to notice. Both constitutions include a clause protecting rights that are not listed: the Ninth Amendment and Article 22. And where the American amendments leave the limits to the courts, Article 23 writes a test for limits into the text itself. The text was checked against the Laws and Regulations Database in October 2026.有兩點可以注意。兩部憲法都有一個保護「沒有列出的權利」的條款：第九條修正案與第 22 條。而美國的修正案把限制的標準留給法院，第 23 條則直接把限制的標準寫進條文。條文於 2026 年 10 月對過全國法規資料庫。
News English · 新聞英語
Listen to each term and its example sentence, then try making a sentence of your own. The examples come from settled history.
先聽每個詞和例句，再試著自己造一句。例句取自已有定論的歷史。
the Bill of Rights權利法案
the first ten amendments to the Constitution, ratified in 17911791 年批准的前十條憲法修正案
The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, a little under three years after the new government began.權利法案在 1791 年批准，距離新政府開始運作不到三年。
the First Amendment第一條修正案
the amendment protecting religion, speech, the press, assembly, and petition保障宗教、言論、出版、集會與請願的修正案
In 1943 the Court relied on the First Amendment to strike down a compulsory flag salute.1943 年，最高法院依據第一條修正案，宣告強制升旗敬禮的規定無效。
free speech言論自由
the freedom to express ideas without government punishment表達意見而不受政府處罰的自由
The armband case of 1969 applied free speech protection to a student's silent protest at a public school.1969 年的臂章案，把言論自由的保障適用到公立學校學生的靜默抗議。
due process正當法律程序
fair procedures that the government must follow before taking life, liberty, or property政府剝奪生命、自由或財產之前必須遵守的公正程序
The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to the states.第十四條修正案的正當程序條款適用於各州。
a search warrant搜索票
a court order allowing the police to search a particular place允許警方搜索特定地點的法院命令
Under the Fourth Amendment, a search warrant must describe the place to be searched.依第四條修正案，搜索票必須寫明要搜索的地點。
the right to counsel律師協助權
the right of a person accused of a crime to have a lawyer被控犯罪的人有律師協助的權利
In 1963 the Supreme Court held that the right to counsel applies in state criminal trials.1963 年，最高法院判定律師協助權適用於州的刑事審判。
civil liberties公民自由
freedoms that protect individuals from government interference保護個人不受政府干預的各種自由
The Bill of Rights is the main source of Americans' civil liberties.權利法案是美國人公民自由的主要來源。
to incorporate a right（把權利）併入、適用於各州
(of a court) to apply a guarantee of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment（法院）透過第十四條修正案，把權利法案的某項保障適用到各州
By the 1960s the Supreme Court had begun to incorporate most of the Bill of Rights.到了 1960 年代，最高法院已經開始把權利法案的大部分併入、適用於各州。
Myth vs. Fact · 常見迷思
✗ Myth · 迷思The First Amendment means anyone can say anything anywhere without consequences.第一條修正案的意思是：任何人在任何地方說任何話都不會有後果。
✓ Fact · 事實It limits the government, not private employers, schools run by private groups, or newspapers. Even against the government it is not absolute; courts have recognized limits, such as speech that would materially and substantially interfere with a school's operation.它限制的是政府，不是私人雇主、私人團體辦的學校或報社。即使是對政府，它也不是絕對的；法院承認有一些界線，例如會實質而重大地干擾學校運作的言論。
✗ Myth · 迷思The Bill of Rights has always protected people from their state governments.權利法案一直都保護人民不受州政府侵害。
✓ Fact · 事實For most of the nineteenth century it did not. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) held that it restrained only the national government. Most of its guarantees were applied to the states between 1925 and 1969.十九世紀大部分的時間並不是這樣。Barron v. Baltimore（1833）判定它只限制全國政府；它的大部分保障是在 1925 到 1969 年間才適用到各州。
✗ Myth · 迷思If a right is not listed in the Constitution, people do not have it.憲法沒有列出的權利，人民就沒有。
✓ Fact · 事實The Ninth Amendment says the opposite: listing certain rights “shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Which unlisted rights the courts should protect is itself a long-running debate.第九條修正案說的正好相反：列舉某些權利，「不得解釋為否定或貶低人民所保有的其他權利」。至於法院該保護哪些沒有列出的權利，本身就是一場長久的爭論。
✗ Myth · 迷思The Bill of Rights was part of the original Constitution.權利法案是原始憲法的一部分。
✓ Fact · 事實It was added afterward. The Constitution took effect in 1789 without it; Congress proposed twelve amendments that year, and ten were ratified in 1791.它是後來加上去的。憲法在 1789 年生效時並沒有它；國會那一年提出十二條修正案，其中十條在 1791 年完成批准。
Activity 1 · 課堂或自學活動一
You need · 準備材料
Steps · 步驟
Choose from the amendments about religion, the press, searches, trials, and punishments. The aim is to see how the text is built, not to argue about current controversies.
從談宗教、出版、搜索、審判與刑罰的那幾條裡挑。目的是看清楚條文的結構，不是爭論當前的議題。
Activity 2 · 課堂或自學活動二
You need · 準備材料
Steps · 步驟
Keep to dates and patterns. The timeline stops in 1975 on purpose; later cases are outside this lesson.
只處理年份與分布。時間軸刻意停在 1975 年，之後的判決不在這一課的範圍。
Go Further · 延伸閱讀
Sources · 資料出處
Quotations, dates, and numbers on this page were checked against these sources in October 2026. Quotations keep the spelling of the originals · 本頁的引文、日期與數字於 2026 年 10 月依下列資料查證；引文保留原文的拼法