The United States is categorized as a secular, free country, and should live up to the expectations that accompany such title. In fact, the Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of these words. An anxious father sued his daughter’s public for insisting upon the recitation of the words “under God.” The case was eventually brought to the Supreme Court, who expertly evaded the subject by dismissing the case under the technicality of the plaintiff’s lack of standing (Elk Grove). Therefore there is no legal support for including the
A police officer must be cautious in the order in which they hesitate or question the suspect and read the suspects rights. No matter if the prosecutor is guilty or not we should be told our constitutional rights. ‘’You have the right to remain silent. ... You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for
“Suspect classifications” include groups that have been historically discriminated against, they possess a visible trait, they are powerless in the political system to protect themselves, and their visible trait does not stop them from participating in society in a meaningful way. Race, religion, national origin, and alien status are all considered suspect classification, and thus any governmental law or policy that discriminates them will be reviewed under strict scrutiny. For a law or policy to be declared constitutional under strict scrutiny, it must be satisfy three components: it must have a compelling state interest which is generally accepted as necessary and crucial, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that state interest, and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that state interest. The Courts have never established a set definition of what constitutes a compelling state interest, thus making it harder to determine the remaining two components. One example of a compelling state interest includes national security.
Using the framework of the Copenhagen school, this essay will analyze the securitization of terrorism in Peru, considering that for an issue to be securitized it is important to have a speech act, an actor that claims that an issue is existentially a threat, demanding to take extraordinary countermeasures to deal with the threat, and convincing an audience that breaking rules is justified to counter the threat. Securitization of Terrorism in
It was not a burden to anyone else. Armbands are a symbol, and they did not inflict their beliefs upon anyone. Forta stated that "the record fails to yield evidence that..." They only criticized a few of the students, and they did not do anything to the rest of them. Everyone that thinks that students should not wear armbands have good reasons. Symbols of war are a threat to the school.
It was a peaceful, harmless, and innocent protest. However it opened a can of worms concerning whether or not students should have the right to protest on school campuses. I believe that the rights we are given under the constitution should not be revoked purely because we are on a school campus. Mary Beth Tinker and the other students never clearly voiced their reasoning for being upset about the Vietnam war. The problem that took the case to court was not the subject of the protesting.
4. Engel v. Vitale In the case, Engel was sueing Vitale over the grounds that there should be no teacher led prayer in public school. My oipinion is that if someone wants to pray, they should be able to. I think that a time of silence/meditation is a good idea because it does not imply any specific religion or any religion at all.
Dimming was quick to tell Catherine that Melody shouldn’t be there to take a tryout test for the quiz team, and later the whole team ended up discriminating her for her disability. “You know; I don’t think it’s appropriate for Melody to be there. This is not a recreational activity just for fun. The purpose of this meeting is to choose our official team.” Catherine was quick to tell him the law and politely let Melody take the test. This is law is called the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) it is a civil rights law that doesn’t allow the discrimination of a disability in employment, state and local government programs, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications.
Being a Catholic is not a crime but there is a consequence for not believing in going to church and the religion. Every church was a protestant church at the time of Queen Mary. Paying the fine does not allow you to have a priest or practice the Catholic faith. There is not a legal way to practice the Catholic religion. In England there is not allowed to be a Catholic priest.
The amendment states, “Congress shall make no laws… abridging the freedom of speech… or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” yet it is commonly known that teachers and students cannot openly discuss religious beliefs before a public classroom. One can logically conclude that there are legal limits to a citizen’s freedom of speech in varying venues. So, concerning non-private sites for presentations, all legal limitations as constitutionally outlined must be met and confirmed by a screening process before the speech may be
In my point of view, the government actually should take some measures in order to not discriminate any citizens. Nevertheless nowadays, it is obvious that according to the regulations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of Indiana it is difficult to strike a balance between religious freedom with protection of civil rights and civil liberties. In accordance with the First Amendment, “free exercise” means a freedom to practice any religion, including less mainstream ones and no religion at all ("What Does "free exercise" of Religion Mean under the First Amendment? ").The government is also forbidden to establish state churches or to refer one religion over another. However, once again, despite the fact that all the religions are under protection, they still be under one up to that moment when they become dangerous for the society on the whole, and to its professors, in
The parent Engel argued that this was prayer was unconstitutional because it was written by the government officials. It was also mentioned how this prayer violated the Establishment Clause. It violated the Establishment of Clause because the school was promoting religion to the student and this is not
The First Amendment of The Constitution is engraved in the minds of the American people for being the guarantor of the Freedom of Speech clause. Nevertheless, the vagueness of said clause has been subjugated to challenges that ask; “Should Freedom of Speech be regulated?” The Supreme Court appeared to be inconsistent for creating answers on a case-by-case basis. However, in the midst of said inconsistency, the Supreme Court’s most compelling standard to determine if speech can be constitutionally restricted is if said speech abridges people from other constitutionally guaranteed rights. To begin, establishing a line between constitutionally protected speech and regulated speech proved to be a daunting task for the Supreme Court. Most importantly, it meant that the Supreme Court was going to run into another major issue; Whether or not individuals would be partially abridged of their Freedom of
However, the Church of Latter-day Saints viewed things differently. They believed that the law was unconstitutionally prohibiting its members from following their right to freely practice their religion, ergo they decidedly ignored the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act. After a while, whilst efforts were being made at the same time to indict the church’s heads for bigamy, the First Presidency came to an agreement to create a test case to be brought to the united States Supreme Court in order to determine how constitutional the anti-bigamy law was. Reynolds was approached to be this test defendant and provide the attorney with numerous witnesses that could confirm his act of bigamy. The case was, in a brief summary, a decision as to whether or not polygamy could be allowed or dismissed if one was filling their “religious duty.” The ruling was that religious beliefs are not supposed to be governed, as the government reaches actions, not opinions.
Rule: The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.” Analysis: No, the rights of those staff members were not violated. The two pages that were excluded from the newspapers final publication included articles on teenage pregnancy and the impacts of divorce on students. The principal that removed the two pages acted reasonably as the newspaper is an extension of a journalism class and is subject to being under control a faculty member. This may have been different if the school had created a forum of some sort which was separate from the curriculum and allowed all students to post their opinions. If someone was silenced on that site then there would be a violation of rights, however, that is not the case.