This amendment grants American citizens rights in many ways. If this amendment was not ratified and we stood today as Americans without this amendment our country would be crazy. In an opinion of ones own this amendment is probably the most important overall. The Sixth Amendment was created simply because the Founding Fathers wanted to protect the rights of the accused. The objected were too many of the ways the Americans were treated by the British in matters of both crime and justice.
These improvements are aimed to monitor suspicious behaviors and hopefully prevent future terrorist attacks like 9/11. This topic is highly controversial. Opponents of the Patriot Act argue that this act restricts the right to privacy which is promised to citizens by the founding fathers and is stated in the Constitution. Supporters argue that the Patriot Act is a necessary response to 9/11 and provides our law enforcement with the means to eradicate potential terrorist behaviors before they occur. Truly, the Patriot Act is one of the most positive government or public response to the 9/11 attacks on the United States.
First, the premises are acceptable in basis of facts. British constitution is unwritten, which is “an accumulation of various statutes, conventions, judicial decisions and treaties” and the core principle is that “what the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.” (University College London). In this sense, the probability lies that there are no constitutional devices which allow abolishing the monarchy. Furthermore, the statement about British Constitutional Democracy is a priori, which can be known to be true on the basis of meanings of terms that Britain is ruled by laws. What is more, the language employed in this argument is relatively neutral in that they are not emotionally charged.
It was argued in the Supreme Court that Fundamental Rights cannot be waived. There can be no estoppel against the Constitution which is the paramount law of the land. The court observed that “No individual can barter away the freedom conferred on him by the Constitution”. Now in the case of plea-bargaining the Right to Appeal is waived of completely once the accused has given his word about being guilty for the offence. But the accused does not have an inherent right to appeal against his conviction and the same has to be conferred by a statute.
In the eyes of the author, “cultural pluralism complicates, and may even completely prevent, the definition of appropriate modes of behavior and self-expression.” With a thorough exploration of how this trend “affects some groups positively and others negatively,” he alludes to the foundation of law regarding pornography: obscene words. For class purposes, much of pornography law has stemmed from common law in England, including Anglican influence and a thorough integration of church and state. With every belief comes dissent, and as common law sought its way into the American legal system, so did landmark cases like Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States. Many obscenity cases came before — such as Regina v. Hicklin — and the ones after honed in on specific contexts, creating rules and tests to identify what truly was
Borders of the First Amendment are at the center of the legal debates about free speech and hate speech. While free speech is considered to be a basic right, as the Supreme Court has given the right to free speech. However, when such "free speech" crosses the line and becomes a threat, the courts have stepped in and punished the speaker. First Amendment does not protect free speech that has the intention of doing harm or damage. Many people believe that the First Amendment gives the people right to say whatever they want but it’s not true.
With the advancement of surveillance technology, many citizens feel that their privacy rights have been violated due to homeland security and the threat of terrorism. Throughout history our government has implemented domestic and international surveillance as a way to safeguard our society from other countries. Now the question that seems to arise within our society is if the government is infringing on our civil liberties? Or is this indeed protecting our nation from imminent danger? The balance between national security and the rights of American citizens was forged in 1791 with The Fourth Amendment.
Snowden releasing the information made laws placed to where it 's harder for the government to spy on its people (Ray)19. The UN intervened and helped the people of the united states to make an act in place to protect privacy (Ray)20. Eric H. Holder told the government that Snowden helped the government from crossing the line when it came to spying and they thank him even though Snowden is still a criminal (Ray)21. From the very little good it did, it actually made the united states more unsafe because it has become harder to watch the groups of terrorist (Ray)22. The damage is done and he did it out of selfishness the people he swore to protect are more endangered than ever (Couric)23.
Terrorists have always been a threat to this great nation, but the events that occurred in Washington D.C. and New York on that fateful day showed many Americans the reality of what terrorists are capable of. Even though the hijackers on 9/11 had entered the country legally, albeit under less stringent immigration laws, the fear that other terrorists might possibly be exploiting weaknesses in our border security is ever present. While many people fear these terrorists entering into our country from the south, Alan Bersin, former Commissioner of The U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, says that the biggest threat actually comes from the north. In 2011, Bersin told reporters that the CBP “has recorded more cases of people with suspected terrorist backgrounds or links to terror organizations entering the U.S. from Canada than from Mexico.” (Mora). This could be because the Canadian border is nearly three times as long as our border with Mexico, and with thousands of miles of desolate terrain, it is harder to patrol.
In the side of the CIA and the NSA, I think that they are doing this things for the national security but also that's illegal to do it without the order of an approval of a martial court, thing that they don´t have. All the American people has been talking about this scandal and some of them think that it´s great for the national security but other people say that it's a crime because the government its violation a fundamental law that is the privacy law, I include