Constitutional Law was created as the chosen way to preserve the United States of America Constitution, ratified by Congress in 1783, in respect to its meanings, use, and enforcement, for free government, and equal justice under the law for all Americans. However, as times and generations have passed, the U.S. Constitution remains the supreme law of the land. Among the most contemporary and controversial elements are the challenges of evolving interpretations of the freedom of speech, and search warrants, which have both had a major impact on society. In particular, we explore speech not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution, as well as some circumstances when a search warrant is not required for a valid search. A conclusion is drawn and outlined based on research conducted to offer a concise in-depth observation of the above topics. FIRST AMENDMENT FREEDOMS The First (1st) Amendment of the United States (U.S.) Constitution, ratified December 15, 1791, “guarantees to all Americans regardless of age, ethnicity, disability, faith, or gender, the freedom of speech, freedom of press, the right to assemble, the right to peacefully assemble, and the right to petition Congress (Government) for a redress of grievances” (Kanovitz, 2010). However, as these types of speech are protected by the 1st Amendment, there are other kinds of speech that are not. The framers of the 1st Amendment intended for this amendment to be broad as to allow the amendment room to adapt to future changes in societal diversities as we live today (Kanovitz, 2010). In these protected rights are solid foundations that secures the opportunity to openly share ideas, thoughts, and various differences in points of view, encouraging interaction... ... middle of paper ... ...merican soil, the question remains as to how much privacy Americans really possess. Yes, security in the person and home is still at the discretion of law enforcement, but how far will the government reach in what seems to be an elaborate effort to gain total control over what the Constitution defines as a free society? This, and many other questions remain unanswered today, but it must be remembered that this is a government of, for, and by the people, not a dictatorship that it has come to be in today’s world. Works Cited Gardner, Bryan A. (2009). In Black's Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West / Thomson Reuters. Kanovitz, J. R. (2010). Constitutional Law (12th ed.). (E. R. Ebben, Ed.) New Providence, NJ, U.S.A.: Matthew Bender & Company, Inc., LexisNexis Gorup. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (Supreme Court June 10, 1968).
THESIS: Mapp v. Ohio and Miranda v. Arizona are Supreme Court cases that prove to be essential in protecting and strengthening individual rights in the United States.
Spaeth, Harold J. and Edward Conrad Smith. The Constitution of the United States, 13th ed. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1991 (paper). ISBN 0064671054.
Kanovitz, J. R. (2010). Constitutional Law (12th ed.). (E. R. Ebben, Ed.) New Providence, NJ,
The Bill of Rights or the first 10 amendments to the Constitution was proposed to Congress in 1789 by James Madison in response to the Anti- Federalist movement that lobbied for an extended amount of rights that would further safeguard liberty. The 4th amendment in particular was drafted to acknowledge the abuse of the writ of assistance, a “search warrant” issued by the British government to search boats that were thought to contain smuggled material in Colonial America. The 4th amendment can be broken down into 3 parts: what activities are considered to be a “search” or a “seizure”; what is a probable cause for a “search” and “seizure” and finally, how violations should be dealt with. The evolution of the 4th amendment is long and tumultuous, starting from what it meant at time of drafting, to the controversy over different interpretations in modern times. Through all the controversies and the debate over the meaning of the 4th amendment, the essence is always the same: to protect man’s liberty.
The First Amendment Center conducts a national annual survey on the First Amendment. “Americans clearly have mixed views of what First Amendment freedoms are and to whom they should fully apply. To me the results of this year’s survey endorse the idea of more and better education for young people - our nation’s future leaders - about our basic freedoms.” (Gene Policinski, VP and executive director of the First Amendment Center 2007)
A V Dicey, Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed 1964) 40.
The United States of America is one of the few countries in the world that cares for every citizen’s rights, even the accused. For instance, in 1966, the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to investigate the rights and treatment of the accused. The Court realized that some police officers would exploit the ignorance of the person(s)’ in question by not letting them know what rights accused persons had, and understood the government had to take action. The Miranda law requires police officers to state, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” With these few words, America changed the way it saw
First, the privacy of Americans is protected mainly because of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 4th amendment states that, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” In other words the 4th amendment enables every citizen of the U.S. to the right of privacy, and consistently forces the government to follow a clear standard when it comes to an individual’s privacy. For example, imagine if the 4th amendment never existed, privacy would be a major problem today, and people would complain a lot about how nothing is private, or how everybody knows everything about everybody else. If we did not have the 4th amendment, privacy would not be a thing, and so therefore the government would be allowed to know everything about everyone. The idea is that an individual’s privacy is paramount until proven guilty, and that was shown in the Katz v. United States case that happened in
The traditionalist approach to free speech protection is centered on core values and yields results that are basically neutral so that content allowed through one communication medium is permissible in all media.Freedom of speech and of the press is a basic tenant of United States constitutional law. Perhaps concern for the English use of prior restraint (licensing of press) and seditious libel was the reason for including the first amendment in our bill of rights. When the first amendment became law the printed page was the most widely used non-verbal medium of speech. Speech, as we understand it, involves more than verbal communication. Speecht includes pictures, movies, radio, television and expressive conduct [Shelton v. Tucker, 364 US 479 (1960)].
Texas v. Johnson was a case in which state law was argued to be in violation of an individual’s First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This case was important because it clarified the definition of speech under the law. This determined whether or not symbolic speech and actions were protected by the First Amendment or not. Within this paper the arguments from both sides of the case will be presented and the issues will be clarified.
This old argument of privacy vs. national security is one that many people, I hope, will agree should be in favor of the people. I understand that the times we live are truly turbulent and violent times but that does NOT excuse the government’s apparent overreach of its initial powers and duties just to satisfy its own ego! Privacy is something that we as citizens should not be nor ever expected to sacrifice to any degree, for the nationwide expectance of n...
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from implementing laws which bar freedom of speech and press. This vital piece of the U.S. Constitution helped build one of the more forward thinking nations of today. America is a melting pot of eclectic cultures, but rights and privilege do not always equal respect. Every citizen is protected by constitutional law, but the Supreme Court must decipher free speech from hate speech as the latter is unlawful. The end goal of any regulation is to maintain order without sacrificing anyone’s personal dignity, but implementation requires action in addition to written word.
Mason, A., & Stephenson, D. (2012). American constitutional law. (16 ed., pp. 84-86). Boston: Longman.
This research question is significant due to the legal history it has and is the fundamental basis of the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution. The first amendment details the rights that U.S citizens have and includes their right to freedom of speech. This amendment affects court cases in regards to the kind of speech is considered to be legal and, if any, the kind of speech that would be considered illegal in the eyes of the government. The significance of what is being allowed to be said is based upon the interpretation of the law and is what gives the citizens their rights to speak or express their opinions. It is worth studying due to it being the rights the citizens of the U.S having as well as showing how the court system interprets the law. Also being on the Constitution, it signifies what rights citizens are guaranteed and is a reflection of how the court system works in modern times. This is important due to it outlining the rights that citizens in the United States have over what they can say and any violations that have occurred to their rights. The government's interpretation of the amendment also has to do with their rights and if they are truly following the rights given to the citizens or if there is a violation the interpretation of
(Takarev, 2012) “Laws which prohibit the actions of things, and provide a penalty for an individual violation, should have no double meaning. An individual should not unnecessarily be responsible, for an honest error in the construction of a penal statute, that a statute and an ordinance violation may be subjected to a prosecution” (Goldsmith, 2003). Every person should be able to know with certainty when they are committing a crime. The government must provide information to the public to achieve its goal that is not overly broad. The United States Supreme Court has developed guidelines for judicial review for claims that constitutional rights are have been violated. (Hall, 2014)