Ron Paul, in his discussion, helps to give the differences between isolationism and non-interventionism. For isolationism, he explains that it is these people or citizens who want their country to be isolated. In this way, they do not want anything from other countries. For non-interventionism, this means taking care of one's own affairs, so that one does not participate in the internal affairs of other countries. I agree with Ron that countries should consider being non-interventionist in the sense that they should not worry about other countries with their resources unless they directly affect
Exclusionary Rule, states that if any evidence is illegally obtain for any case cannot be used in court. The case of “Weeks VS United States” is one example of how the exclusionary rule works. (Explain the case) I personally think rule goes well in hand with the fourth amendment. But with the exclusionary rule some would say that it cancels out the Patriot act. According to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This argument does not speak to the constitutional issue of the case. The Supreme Court’s main objective is to protect individuals and minorities from oppressive government. This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the
The problem with this case is not that he was found guilty; the problem is that the state legislated a law that goes completely against the First Amendment that prohibits governments from creating laws that take away the citizens right and protects the citizens from their government. Butler did in fact violate
Because of this limitation, the government has the ability to regulate the medium of broadcasting more cautiously. The Court mentioned that having a license to broadcast only permits just that, broadcasting. The permit does not allow the licensee to dominate or exploit that frequency. The Court ruled that “there is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves...” Therefore, the First Amendment of the Constitution was not violated. The “scarcity of broadcast frequencies,” gives the government a significant interest in making those frequencies available to express all points of view rather than simply monopolizing the airwaves to those who hold licenses.
The 2nd amendment of the United States is ¨The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.¨ This statement plainly states that every American has the right to bear arms, there are no other possible interpretations of this amendment that make any logical understanding. The rights cannot be violated because the Government deems it to be politically incorrect, The rights of the people are not being read broadly enough and the misinterpretation leads to ignorance and irrational fear of firearms. ( Ferrara, 1) The District of Columbia´s ban on firearms is totally unconstitutional and a violation of American Liberty. The Mayor, Adrian Fenty argues that since the ban crime rates have dropped; This is a complete fallacy. Since the 1976 ban murder
As illustrated, U.S. citizens should be granted the ability to protest wars and drafts since it violates the first Amendment’s right to free speech. The Supreme Court made an invalid choice. In another sense, the fact that Charles Schenck was not initiating any violence during his protest indicates why citizens should be required to protest
The rules of the country take precedence over everything else in the public domain. Therefore, prohibiting disparaging remarks is not a violation of freedom of speech. The question of violation doesn’t arise at all as the laws are cleared defined. Government restricts the freedom of speech for citizens if expression threatens to be destructive. And as per the definition, disparaging remarks in public can lead to destructive consequences.
A country whose rights are secured in a national document, stating that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” (U.S. Constitution), should not be able to obstruct rights of mentally secure, law abiding,