And I think he was denied to a counsel, which violated his rights, but he should be entitled to one, not sure why they didn’t give him an attorney. But then he shouldn’t get one because why would he need one, if he already committed a crime, andhe got caught committing a new one, which makes no sense as to why get an attorney
Aquinas believes a human law that is in conflict with natural law is not actually a law: "a human law diverging in any way from the natural law will be a perversion of law and no longer a law" (Aquinas 54). Because natural and eternal law appeals to a higher form of justice than human law, both King and Aquinas assert that people can break human law if that law goes against the 'higher law.' Martin Luther King Jr. writes, "I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances because they are morally wrong." When King writes "they are morally wrong," he is contending that the segregation ordinances are in opposition to eternal and natural law. In fact, natural and eternal law being a 'higher law' is the basis of King's philosophy of 'non-violent civil disobedience.'
The First Amendment aims to protect the right of freedom of religion and the right of freedom of expression of all United States citizens. However, Lawrence states “The Supreme Court has held that words that ‘by their very utterance inflict injury or intend to incite an immediate breach of the peace’ are not constitutionally protected.” (Lawrence, pg 175) The First Amendment does not protect speech that maintains a sole purpose to inflict harm on other people. “Racial insults are undeserving for First Amendment protection because the perpetrator’s intention is not to discover truth or initiate dialogue, but to injure the victim” (Lawrence, pg 175) If someone is going to have a conversation with another person, than their freedom of speech should be protected, however; if someone had the sole intentions of causing harm or discomfort to the person that they were speaking with or at, then their freedom of speech may not be so protected. This should be of no concern to any persons on a college campus who are worrying about their right to freedom of speech or expression being neglected, considering that speech codes only work to prevent harm inflicted by hate speech to all students. I agree with Lawrence in that if we are going to end racism, we, as a society, have to take small steps in protecting minority
States do not sufficiently mirror private associations, therefore they cannot be used as examples of groups that have the right to exclude similar to that of nations. I additionally claim that there is an extreme conflict between a state’s right to exclude and a general right of association among individuals. An individual’s right to associate has greater moral significance than the right of states to elect who to include. This being true, individual freedom of association actually supports the idea that individuals can migrate across national boundaries. However, even if one does not agree with this stance, Wellman’s premises fail to establish a strong enough argument for the right of states to exclude potential migrants
The first amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens’ rights to; freedom of the press, peaceful assembly, religious freedom, the right to petition the government, and the right to free speech. The Constitution itself asserts: “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” Interpreting the first amendment has always been a subject for debate, and many citizens of the United States are unaware of what is actually protected by the first amendment, specifically in regards to freedom of speech. This lack
After Fields conviction had been overturned, The U.S. government decided to appeal Fields case. The Supreme court accepted the case. Fields attorneys are arguing that the Stolen Valor act is unconstitutional. Field attorneys argued that Fields cannot be convicted because he lied. The First amendment protects speech that does not directly harm others.
In the first Amendment it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The government allows multiple different religions in the U.S. The U.S government doesn’t tolerate religious actions that may be going against the law. Over time there are many different court cases that were coming up, which made it harder to determine the verdict for each case. The government decided to use the Sherbert test to resolve this issue. The Sherbert test has to have a compelling state interest for the law and the law is the least restrictive means of advancing the CSI.
When Obama was asked if he was going to pardon Snowden, President Obama stated, “I can 't pardon somebody who hasn 't gone before a court and presented themselves, so that 's not something that I would comment on at this point.” In Edward Snowden’s defense, why would he try to go in front of a court where he wouldn’t be given the right of freedom of speech because under that Espionage Act he can’t explain his actions? Another reason why President Obama should give him a pardon is because he’s being charged for crimes he didn’t commit with the Espionage Act. He didn’t sell the information for a large sum of money or give it to enemies, and lastly, he worked at the direction of a foreign government so why is the United States charging him. No one sees the sacrifice Snowden made because he’s giving up more than just information he’s giving up his life for the rights of American
Pornography can only be banned if considered obscene, which was determined during the Ferber Case. In the case of Miller v. California,) Ferber did not want to reflect on what the state considered obscene. Ferber was more interested in prosecuting those who promote the
For example, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing ‘religion’. Meaning, they cannot create a national church or declare that Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism as the official religion of the United States of America. While procedural liberties are limits on how the government can act. For example, in America, in courtroom drama’s, there is a presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty. This presumption means, in criminal cases, jury’s and judges have to act as those the accused is innocent until the prosecution conviences them otherwise.
She posed a “relatively serious” threat to the country and its’ citizens. Issue The issue and question at hand was whether the 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act of California violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, the other question was that did the Criminal Syndicalism Act also violate the First Amendment. Rule of Law- A state can prohibit its citizens from knowingly being a part of or beginning an organization that promotes criminal syndicalism with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Analysis – The clear decision of the court was that they did not want anything that
As acting Chief Justice John Marshall told Madison that what he had done was illegal, but since Marbury’s petition was out of jurisdiction Madison claimed it unconstitutional so the court could not order Madison to return the papers. During the Marbury vs Madison case many were able to identify unconstitutional issues regarding Marbury and his decisions.
In Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the court ruled that the mentally retarded should not be tried for death penalty because they do not bear the proper guilt that even the worst adult criminal bears upon committing a crime. The mentally retarded have trouble reasoning and controlling their
Taxing was one of their weaknesses. The Congress didn’t have the power to enforce taxes on imported goods, so they discussed it with the states. Rhode Island didn’t agree with putting taxes on imported goods, and therefore, the congress wasn’t allowed to do it. In the letter, the Rhode Island Assembly proves that this tax is contrary to the constitution, and thus, it shouldn’t be
Justice William Douglas stated that the sterilization of habitual offenders had no defined correlation to them procreating offenders. In addition, Justice Douglas argued that this act was also a form of discrimination that targeted minority groups unlawfully. In an argument concurrently with Justice Douglas, Justice Stone argued that the act was in violation of due process because it didn’t have a hearing on merely the basis of whether criminal traits are inheritable, specifically in Skinner’s