To clarify, although Holmes quarrels that the Supreme Court was right in their decision to arrest Schenck whom, “…as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive of evils that Congress has the right to prevent.” In contrast, this decision violates the 13th Amendment since Schenck was not presenting an harm or danger. But, however, his actions were, “…more like someone shouting, not falsly, but truly…” In a sense, the Supreme Court was incorrect in their decision; therefore, U.S. citizens have the right to protest during times of
It does not give too much power to the jury nor the defendant. This Amendment was founded to protect people in America who have been accused of a criminal defense. With this Amendment, we as America will always endeavor and blaze the trail of opportunity, prosperity, and
To begin with, Counterterrorism measures such as Biometric data collection would not flag Adam Smith as a homegrown terrorist. Even though Homeland Security’s advanced data collection and evaluation methods from have had outstanding triumphs with many foreign terrorists entering the United States. In the same fashion, administered programs such techniques are probable to yield false positives due to temporary or permanently distorted physical injuries. Furthermore, the homegrown terrorist in the U.S. is typically obedient to the laws with authentic proofs of identification with transgressions or not has not been alerted by Homeland Security as a terrorist.
The exclusionary rule is a deterrent against searches and seizures. Any evidence that is gained through an illegal search or seizure is now inadmissible in criminal proceedings, per the exclusionary rule. Supporters of the exclusionary rule argue that it helps prevent illegal searches and seizures against law enforcement. Those against the exclusionary rule argue that the exclusionary rule keeps criminals out of jail and there are other preventative measures such as suspending police officers without pay, dismissing them from a case, or in extreme circumstances terminating employment of officers who violate the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects all citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures from all government officials.
Freedom of speech allows Americans say what they would like to say without getting in trouble. There are a few exceptions such as no slander, threats, national security and some pornography. This means you can’t go around hurting people’s reputations and life with lies. You also are not allowed to give threats and share government secrets. Say if you had been in the Federal Bureau of Investigation and then you left your job, you still cannot tell the secrets of the government for the reason of national security.
The rule is intended to prevent police officers from violating the rights granted by the Fourth Amendment. Thus, evidence obtained by the police that violates the Fourth Amendment cannot be used to convict someone accused of a crime. Some people think that without this rule, the Fourth Amendment would not make sense. As with many other legal rules, this rule has several exceptions. In the Supreme Court relied on the rule of "good faith" holding that the evidence obtained by the officers conducting inquiries based on a "good faith" court order that is subsequently found to be deficient is also admissible.
Critics try to counter by saying that jury nullification is a bad method because juries are not experienced and trained as police and prosecutor are. The thing is though juries are useful exactly because they are not trained to know the law. They are a common sense point of view because they are not affected by restricting law. Such a common sense point of view is necessary to properly balance the rule of law with the fair application of justice—because a purely legal approach made by lawyers and judges can often result in harsh results. That is why it is important to have another party whose views can be different from judges and lawyers to have the power to counter the wrongness made by them.
In conclusion, NSA’s digital surveillance shouldn’t be continued for following reasons. First, it’s against of laws and constitution. Retrieving information from digital space is considered as unreasonable searches, therefore it violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which protects all U.S citizens from unreasonable searches. It’s not legal either. Patriot act was ruled illegal as they passed the freedom act.
Nozick was another prominent philosopher who was most prominent in the 1970s and 1980s. Robert questioned the role of the state in promoting justice. Nozick believes the state may legitimately use its power to protect citizens against force, theft, and fraud, but he insists, “the state may not use its coercive apparatus for the purpose of getting some citizen to aid others, or to prohibit activities to people for their own good or protection.” Here you can see the similarities between Rawl and Nozick. The similarity here is that one citizen should not aid another citizen or for the benefit of the society, if harmed. The difference, however, is that for Nozick fairness does not lie in wealth redistribution as Rawls seems to suggest, but rather in safeguarding what people have legitimately acquired and are entitled to keep.