Petition of Right is when they King become answerable to others and not just God. The King said they were only answerable to God. The divine right of the Kings was a very unpopular thing among the people because the King couldn't be wrong, but they didn't want to disobey the King or God. Article 1; Section 9 is an example of the many ways the Constitution limits our government. The framers did not want the government to have complete and total power so they limited the government.
There are currently no constitutional limits on hate speech, even though many community areas such as college campuses have passed restrictions. Any law that restricts hate speech is actually unconstitutional as of right now, and to move forward with an agenda that would restrict speech in this way on a federal level is simply not supported by the Constitution. Attempting to pass a law that defines hateful speech and outlaws it would be a violation of the first amendment, as it would be very difficult to do so in a way that does not infringe on other liberties granted under the first amendment. Many of those who support hate speech as a first amendment right argue that hateful words do not incite violence unless that violence already existed, and would have happened with or without encouragement. This is a nice thought, and in a perfect world it would even be true, however, this notion is not supported by the massive amount of evidence showing violent acts encouraged by hateful speech.
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.
I disagree because if someone or some group has a problem with government’s actions against their own or some other country, they shouldn’t start burning flags or other things. Burning a national flag is disrespectful since it is not going to change anything and it will send a wrong signal to others that doing this is a right way to show your opposition to any policy. There are lot of things which we don’t agree with but that should not result in a violence or burning flags and other things. Protect can be done in a peaceful manner and there are other avenues to make your voice and opinion
It simply says “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech” ("First Amendment (ratified 1791”). Nowhere in the Amendment does it specify what kind of speech is protected. In addition, United State also violated its citizen’s right by creating a law (The Federal Obscenity Statute) to limit the speech of the people, which is an
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. — The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution According to the statement above and research, the First Amendment was written to protect freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition. Religious minorities can be persecuted, protesters and media can be silenced, the press cannot criticize government, and citizens cannot mobilize for social change without the First Amendment. After explaining importance of First Amendment, I will explain how we can apply it to student newspapers.
Based on the first amendment which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”. We the citizens of the United States have the freedom to choose and practice our religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press and freedom of petition. Although this amendment seems to be beneficial for the general public it actually does more harm than good. I do not believe that there is in fact a such thing as freedom. Freedom means the power to act, speak or think as one warns without hindrance or restraint.
Therefore, despite them being somewhat alarming for a government to deal with, there is no way to rid of factions within a fair and free government. Madison would certainly not advocate for a government that strips liberty from its citizens, and he is not naïve enough to think that all the citizens of a country would be able to agree on all ideas one hundred percent of the time. Thus, Madison concedes that factions are inevitable in a free government. Despite his concession, he still defends the newly formed United States Constitution by showing that it can control the damage of factions better than any other government system man has seen to this
The Importance of the 1st Amendment In 1787 our founding fathers assembled the constitution of the United States of America. Of this which contains the most important document to the American citizen, the Bill of rights. The first Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances” These freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights are often known as freedom of expression. These rights are most important to a truly free society. The first amendment provides us with new ideas and dismisses the fear of punishment
It is similar to the constitution because it allows for what are considered basic rights like that government cannot intervene in a court case. Question 5. The bill of rights affects the power of the government in multiple ways. It bans the government from imposing any religion on everyone in America.
Justice Potter Stewart worte a dissenting opinion stating that there is nothing wrong if the government sets out a voluntary prayer and by oposing the prayer they are taking away the wish of the children who want to participate in it. he saud "I cannot see how an 'official religion ' is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. " The final decision was that it was unconstitutional of the Board of Regeants to enforce this
The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
The dissenting opinion included: Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito. Roberts took a strict-constructionist approach and stated that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction because same-sex marriage was not explicitly stated in the constitution. He stated that although same-sex marriage may be a good policy it is not the Supreme Court’s duty to make that decision. He held that the right to same-sex marriage should be given to the states rather than the national government. The constitution protected the right to marriage and requires states to implement these laws equally but the Supreme Court should not engage in judicial policy making.
This is a negative right, since it prohibits something rather than entitles it. Under this clause, the U.S. government is prohibited from establishing one religion above others. This is usually interpreted to mean that the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid the imposition of a 'state religion. ' Just like the Free Exercise Clause, though, there are times when it seems that religion and government can 't get out of each other 's way. Fortunately, the Constitution includes a process for resolving these questions: the U.S.