In the Constitution, there is no mention for the freedom of press, assembly, religion, or speech. Since the listed freedoms are not mentioned in the Constitution, the government is free to exploit and violate them. Americans fought a war for the security of their fundamental rights, and they don’t want a constitution that would place those rights in danger of loss.The Federalists would say that a bill of rights is not needed because The Constitution is the ultimate protection of the people, and the people are the sovereigns. This can be countered by the fact that, in the Constitution, there is no mention of the freedom of religion speech, press, etc. National government is free to violate these
"(“Roth”).The court said the first Amendment was not planned to protect statements like Roth’s. The problem is the First Amendment does not specify what kind of speech is protected or not. 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
This happens so that no group will dominate over another group and to keep the stronger groups from combining. If the stronger groups combine with each other and began to form against the weaker small groups, liberty will be lost within the system of government and as a whole. Madison basically reiterates what he said in federalist number 10 by showing conflicts of interest when people join various groups. His main focus was to identify how he can decrease the risk. “But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense.
In the first Amendment it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The government allows multiple different religions in the U.S. The U.S government doesn’t tolerate religious actions that may be going against the law. Over time there are many different court cases that were coming up, which made it harder to determine the verdict for each case. The government decided to use the Sherbert test to resolve this issue. The Sherbert test has to have a compelling state interest for the law and the law is the least restrictive means of advancing the CSI.
It would make no sense whatsoever to restrict the right to keep and bear arms to state governments, since the principle on which our policy is based, as stated in the Declaration, recognizes that any government, at any level, can become oppressive of our rights. Therefore, we must be prepared to defend ourselves against its abuses, but the movement against 2nd Amendment rights is not just a threat to our capacity to defend ourselves physically against tyranny. It is also part of the much more general assault on the very notion that human beings are capable of moral responsibility. This is a second and deeper reason that the defense of the 2nd Amendment is essential to the defense of liberty. Advocates of banning guns think we can substitute material things for human self-control, but this approach will not wash.
“[Britain’s] Magna Carta and bill of rights have long been the boast, as well as the security of that nation….this principle is a fundamental one… [and] such declarations should make a part of [the United States’ frame] of government” (Document B). This document limited the King's power. By the Barons stopping the KIng from doing anything they wanted they limited the KIng's government. The framers limited the government by making Amendments In the Bill of Rights. The branched cannot pass any law that is unconstitutional or against the people.
People who agree believe that no one should be able to own a gun, or that there should simply be stricter gun control laws. Therefore there would be less chance of another shooting to occur. The people that don’t agree believe that they shouldn 't lose their right of owning a gun because of one person’s actions and accidents that they couldn’t have prevented. “The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.” America should have stricter gun control . Gun shop owners should be aware of who they are selling a gun to, and what weapons they are able to purchase.
Granted, it was created to help protect American lives from extremists looking to inflict harm on innocent lives it should still not take away the rights of the majority when trying to hunt for a minority. Not all Americans are out looking to cause domestic terrorism, so the government should not be looking at them in such a manner. Madison and Jefferson could not have predicted such an action as 9/11 perpetrated on American soil, but they were right when they established that the majority should rule and minorities should be protected. In modern times it seems as though the script may have been flipped, and the majority could be considered to be the one being
The Second Amendment grants U.S citizens the right to bare arms, but it was written in a very different time: there was no police protection, and were no automatic weapons available.”- Is it time to pass tough gun control laws? By McClathy Tribune. People often refer to the Second Amendment when the argument of gun control laws as an excuse to prevent these changes because they believe their right to self-dense with a weapon is a form of government taking over. “There’s also the slippery slope argument. It preys on people’s fears that the government will turn into a dictatorship or completely ban guns…The Founders of our country wanted the people to be able to protect themselves from over powerful governments.” - Is it time to pass tough gun control laws?
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.