However, some people believe you shouldn’t be able to own a gun. Thanks to our Second Amendment, we, as citizens of the United States, have the right to defend ourselves. However, it’s difficult to predict what might happen if you didn’t own a gun in that scenario. The intruder could possibly have a firearm, there is nothing stopping them since they’re already disobeying the law by breaking and entering. Chances are that there will be a negative outcome, whether it’s death or simply the loss of property.
The Supreme Court overruled the decision in that case. It ruled that their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause extends to their right to engage in intimate sexual activities, without the interference of the government. The Texas Statute does not have legitimate state interest which can justify their intrusion into the personal and private lives of the people. The court safeguarded the right to privacy in this case by
One may argue that guns should be completely outlawed, whilst another may argue the complete opposite -- making guns controversial. A common misconception about gun control is the means of doing so. The controlling of guns does not necessarily mean the taking away of guns from all American citizens, but the taking away of guns from unauthorized American citizens; otherwise known as gun regulation. Though it is stated in the second amendment that it is a right to “keep and bear arms,” the intentions at the time were that of a state facing tyranny. Hence, it was a sensible security to implement “well regulated militias” with the power to effectively resist.
The 1st Amendment explicitly gives the people freedom of expression in the United States of America. Users may have the potential to endanger someone‚Äôs life but that is the job of other establishments to censor, block, and report, not the Congress. For example, in the Reno v. ACLU (1997), the court unanimously came to a conclusion that anti-indecency provisions such as the CDA violated the first amendment. The Communications Decency Act held that Congress can filter the internet if images or comments were ‚Äúcriminalized ‚Äúobscene or indecent‚Äù speech transmitted to children or if it ‚Äúcriminalized the delivery of ‚Äúpatently offensive‚Äù information to children‚Äù (Reno v. ACLU (1997) Case Background). The government has no say in banning obscenity as the internet is open to all and is bound to have indecent materials available to children.
The constitution clearly states that we have the freedom of speech. If the government did censor speech, so many problems would arise. Some problems may be, how limiting our speech is unconstitutional, wars could occur. The First Amendment doesn’t take sides. Censoring speech in America is a horrible idea.
DeMichel provides that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizure while requiring law enforcement personnel to provide notice of their identity and announce their purpose when entering upon private premises. The court found it unreasonable for the officers to forcible enter the premises with first giving the occupant an opportunity to voluntarily surrender the premises. Our client’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated when the plain clothed officers entered the premises without announcing their purpose and without providing Mr. Clavel the appropriate time to voluntarily open his door and surrender the premises for search. The unlawful search and seizure led to Mr. Clavel’s charges of intent to distribute
The shootings that have happened in schools throughout America over the past few months has divided Americans on what they need to do as a nation to stop additional shootings from happening. many believe that creating new laws on buying weapons by requiring background checks, holding adults liable for the actions of their kids and requiring gun locks on weapons to stop youngsters will stop these massacres in our colleges from happening, it's a step in the right direction, however, its not effective enough the politicians to understand that the laws should be based on facts, not opinions. There are several problems that need to be looked at in order to determine which laws are necessary.according to a recent study America has the highest amount gun related
The exclusionary rule is a lawful principle that the United States use, which expresses that the confirmation that was powerfully utilized by the police can 't be utilized in a criminal trial. The motivation behind why this is done it’s for the security of the established rights. In addition, the exclusionary rule states that in the Fifth Amendment no one "should be denied of life, freedom, or property without due procedure of law." The exclusionary rule additionally expresses that in the Fourth Amendment it is intended to shield residents from unlawful pursuits and seizures. It also applies to the infringement of the Sixth Amendment, which ensures the privilege to counsel.
For example, in our society, “it goes against the First Amendment that states that as Americans we have freedom of speech and freedom of press.”[Word Press] If the government were to implement censorship to our speech, as they do in Brave New World, (Mother, Father, etc out of vocabulary), it would be a violation of the amendments to the constitution which protect us from things like that happening. This would result in protests and chaos all around the nation. In democracies such as ours it has been shown that censorship is accepted only up to a certain extent, but to the extremes that they implement in Brave New World, would not be
Flag protection, or making it a federal crime to deface the American flag, is the very definition of hypocrisy. It is by no means acceptable to deface the flag – in the same way it would be unacceptable to call other people names or insult religions – but freedom of speech must extend to the freedom to offend others, lest it no longer be freedom of speech, but only freedom to speak what the government wants to be spoken. This may start with a protection of the flag, but it will eventually result in a society of censorship. If the government is able to censor what is thought, spoken, or believed, then we are no better than countries who censor everything, and the experiment of America – that a society can be formed based on equal freedom for all – has failed.
Presumably the FBI has all his data up until that day. The question of course is, ‘Why did he stop backing up his phone six weeks before the attack?’ Was it because he started communicating more with terrorist’s sleeper cells around the U.S. and he wanted to make sure that data didn’t get into the Cloud, or was it just because Apple kept making him change his iCloud password so often that it got incredibly confusing and it wouldn’t let him change it back to his previous password and he just couldn’t access it anymore!? I really do not get the last one though because Farook only used a four-digit password meaning there’s only ten thousand possible combinations. Now that might sound like a lot, but if you allow four seconds to type in each four-digit passcode you could actually try all ten thousand combinations in only eleven hours. It seems like instead of asking Apple to make such a serious modification to the software a single FBI agent could have sat there and tried all possible combination.
If someone had some important evidence on their phone to help solve an investigation wouldn 't someone want the authorities to be able to look at the phone? There have been situations over the past year where authorities may have thought there was some evidence on a phone that would help them solve a case. Some may say if the police will just get the phones they will know the information right away and help criminal activity to drop. Many people may make an argument to say if the police officers are allowed to look at these phones crimes this still wouldn 't help the criminal investigations. The reason for this is because people don 't like it because it violates privacy.
They find child pornography images among his digital photos. Paul is charged under California 's child pornography laws. In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court clarifies the law on cell phone searches making it clear that the warrantless search of Paul 's phone is now illegal. But because the police who searched Paul 's phone were acting in good faith, in accordance with California law as it was at the time the images can still be admitted as evidence against Paul. I think that California laws on search and seize on electronic devices are fair.
Before federal agents take surveillance and seize phone calls or records from a person they must first have a good reason or evidence to do so. This follows the idea of probable cause listed above. Next, before agents can seize anything they must issue a warrant and have it approved. This way they can’t just see anybody’s information that they want to. Here is a quote from a heritage.org writer on the Patriot Act’s constitutionality.
The exclusionary rule is “based on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that incriminating information must be seized according to constitutional specifications of due process or it will not be allowed as evidence in a criminal trial.” This corresponds with the fourth amendment because it protects us from unreasonable search and seizure from police. So, if police would find something incriminating evidence during an unreasonable search and seizure, it would not go through in the court of law hence the word “Exclusionary rule.”