13th Amendment Pros And Cons

As the roaring twenties reached their end the battle against alcohol in the United States is just arising to a turning point. With serious controversy over the Volstead Act the country was greatly divided. There was also the extreme rising occurrences of crime, the creation of gangs and a newly established, unorganized criminal justice system. Prohibition was a disaster across America and the more reforment from the government just made things worse.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it state that women are citizens. Women have never been legally declared persons in this country, not by the Founding Fathers, not by the Constitution, not by the Supreme Court. The Fifteenth Amendment guarantees to right to vote to all U.S. citizens, whatever their race, whether they had been born free or born a slave, but it didn’t include women the right to vote. Women fought along for the abolition of slavery. When the battle was won, black men got the right to vote. Black women didn’t neither did white women. The effort to win our right to vote took 52 years, until 1920 when the 19th amendment was passed. To win the vote women ran 56 referendum campaigns; 804 campaigns in the states; 19 campaigns in 19

Also, since the Constitution clearly creates Congress as a body with enumerated powers, this could not be so. So the Supreme Court decided to reject the law. Even though, the dissenting opinion from Justice Bryer who said that Congress had the power to regulate anything After that they "reasonably believed" could affect commerce (saying then that they could regulate the carrying of handguns at schools because it would presumably lead to violence which would have an effect on the economy which would effect interstate commerce)[5]. Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist stated that “ To uphold

In June 2008, the Supreme Court was asked in District of Columbia v. Heller to consider whether a District of Columbia provision that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the general registration of handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The petitioner, Dick Heller, was a D.C. special police office authorized to carry a handgun on duty. Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment right when his one-year application to keep his handgun at home for personal use was denied. Arguably the most controversial amendment of the constitution in present-day, the Second Amendment reads, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause stated “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century as properly but, not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

According to the Second Amendment, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment specifically states that “the right of the people to keep

The Ninth Amendment states: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be constructed or deny or disparage others retained by the people” (Bill of Rights). This amendment was made to protect people’s rights. Including things like marriage, abortion, slavery, and police conduct. However, this modification has been compromised several times in the past and the present.

In contrast, Opponents believe that arms should have regulations because they cause violence, such as mass shootings and murder. Despite the differences on each side, the second amendment aids in the protection of all individual rights of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense when necessary. As a result, the definition of the right to bear arms has to be provided. The second amendment is quite a chicanery clause to understand, the first part of the clause states “ a well-regulated militia.” “Well regulated…” was defined in the eighteenth century, as properly but not overly regulated (Roleff 69).

The Second Amendment says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Gun rights has become the subject of intense political, social, and cultural battles for much of the last century. The pro-gun right side has asserted that the right to arms was absolute, and that any gun control laws infringed that right (Kopel, 2013). This right has been supported by the Supreme Court who has reinforced what has become the American consensus that the Second Amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, especially for self-defense, and that it is a fundamental individual

A constitution is the fundamental law by which a nation or a state is governed and organized. It establishes the framework of government, delegates the powers and duties of governmental bodies, and defines the relationship between the government and their citizens. Texas current constitution was adopted in 1876, and since then Texas voters have approved more than 467 amendments to this document. The word “amendment” is defined as the act or process of changing the words or the meaning of a law or document (constitution). Throughout this essay I will explain the rules for amending the Texas Constitution, the attempts made at constitutional reforms during the 1970s, explain why constitutional reforms were attempted and why it ultimately failed.

C. Precedent The law is unconstitutional not only due to the meaning of the text itself, but also from many cases of precedent. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) have already established the importance of the Second Amendment, but there are other cases as well that back up the courts decision claiming the ban on carrying a concealed weapon is unconstitutional. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, (KY 1822), established that the right to bear arms was for defense against themselves and the state. This case consisted of a man carrying a concealed weapon in his cane and it is similar to the one in which we face today.

The Bill of Rights was passed by congress on September 25, 1789 and was ratified on December 15 , 1791. James Madison and George Manson contributed to the bill rights. In the website, “Bill of Rights Institute,” the “Bill of Rights of The United States of America (1791)” explains the history of the Bill of Rights. At first 17 amendments were agreed on at the house but only 12 out of those 17 were approved. From there , only 10 were passed after being sent to the rest of the states.The bill of rights was created because of a conflict between the Anti-federalists and federalists.The federalists agree that a bill of rights was required.

In my first case, I will analyze the Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. In this case, in a 5-4 decision, the Court overrules its decision in United States v. Miller, in which, it stated that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in relation with service in a well-regulated, government sponsored militia. In the majority opinion of Heller, Scalia divides the Second Amendment into two parts: the prefatory clause and the operative clause. The prefatory clause is the first half of the Second Amendment, it reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” while the operative clause is the second half of the Amendment: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall

Updating the Amendment 2.0 The right to bear arms has been a favoured constitutional law since its establishment in 1791, but as more gun related violence and accidents occur, there has been increasing debate on whether or not guns should be banned in the US altogether, and if not, what regulations should be required for the purchase and handling of them. While guns should not be completely banned from the country, the rules and regulations of gun laws should be tightened. In the 2nd amendment, it clearly states that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While this statement still holds true, the evolution of firearms and how they have become more dangerous throughout the years is a clear sign of why the laws should be changed.

Since the begining of America, the Founding Fathers wrote the strong-standing Bill of Rights with amendments to protect the country that had just recently won their freedom, but one amendment has been the top theme of controversies for centuries. Gun laws offend the Bill of Rights in so many ways and they prove ineffective. Gun Laws are relevant due to thousands of deaths and self-protection. The argument goes on but without guns there is militia, one of the main intents of the Second Amendment. These simple rules can reduce deaths, proven by millions of influential people.