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
Changing it every time something in the world comes about will get to a point where it’s too much for the government. “A common law Constitution is a "living" Constitution, but it is also one that can protect fundamental principles against transient public opinion, and it is not one that judges (or anyone else) can simply manipulate to fit their own ideas”( Strauss, David A). With today’s society and the way things are its hard to say whether or not this document is living or not. I still believe the Constitution is a non-living document. In another article I read, Scalia states that “that issues such as abortion and homosexuality do not appear in the Constitution makes them matters for which citizens and states can enact laws”( Patel, Ushma).
In my interpretation of the First Amendment, the rights of the people to freely express their opinions, even if unpopular, is clearly protected. Specifically, hate speech is not clearly defined and may differ between people. Individuals and groups can disagree on if specific issues may be considered hateful. Advocates of, what some may consider as hate speech, will likely disagree that their opinions on an issue would be considered hate speech. Protecting all speech, including hate speech, should only imply that the government is following the first amendment to not interfere or be prejudice against anyone expressing their opinions if done so with regard to other laws.
However, the group was prevented from doing so: because prior to the ruling, doing so would violate a federal statute that prohibits the use of advertisements to promote or discriminate against any candidate in an election. But because the First Amendment prevents the making of any laws preventing people from practicing Free Speech, the Supreme Court eradicated this federal statute; this made all political ads legal, regardless of nature. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell stated after the decision “With today’s monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues." (McConnell v. FEC) For this reason, many believe that overturning the Citizens United ruling would be unconstitutional and by doing so would the Supreme Court would be limiting Freedom of
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.
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.
Medina, Jr. represented Life magazine. Medina asserted that the privacy law in New York was unconstitutional because it is too broad and corrective. Medina also argued that the prior ruling in the case was unsuitable because the jury was allowed to conclude liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy and the privacy law does not impact freedom of the press. He put forth that the “fictionalization” aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression.
GMI and HDTV will not be convicted because the First Amendment protects commercial speech. Commercial speech is not protected as noncommercial speech. For example, to protect consumers, a state may ban certain kinds of marketing practices, such as untrustworthy or false advertising. In general, a restriction on commercial speech will be considered valid as long as it falls between strict, intermediate, or rational scrutiny rules. Here, the complete ban on video ads "because the games might be damaging to teenagers " is too restrictive: it goes too far in attempting to protect minors for an apparently unconfirmed
The court ruling disapproved with states banning interracial marriage because it was unconstitutional. In spite of the fact that a privilege to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court said that such a privilege is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of the fact that such choices are vital to our survival and our values. Accordingly, they should essentially reside with the individual instead of with the state. This choice is a conflict with the popular argument that something cannot be an actual constitutional right unless it is spelled out straightforwardly in the U.S. Constitution. It additionally stands out amongst the most imperative models on the general thought of common uniformity, clarifying that essential social equality is basic to our reality and cannot really be restricted on the grounds that a few people trust that their god can 't help
One thing that sets America apart from other countries is its freedom. The freedom to say, do, or practice whatever one wants. Hate speech is part of that freedom. Not allowing “hate speech” is essentially telling someone, “Hey, you shouldn’t have an opinion.” There are quotations marks around the words hate speech because there’s no real guideline on what is considered a hate speech. It’s sort of a gray line.