Nevertheless, he considered such measures necessary in the conditions of war preparation since the act provided more rights not only to the federal government but also to President himself. From the point of view of a slave and rebel leader, this act could be considered inappropriate. According to a leader of rebel, the Sedition Act might be seen as violating “individual protections under the first amendment of the Constitution” ("The Alien And Sedition Acts [Ushistory.Org]"). The slaves and rebels were not directly impacted by those acts, so their position towards the passing could be unidentified. Nevertheless, the Kentucky Resolutions that were taken with regard to the acts was later used against the Fugitive Slave
If that wasn’t specified, there would likely be a lot of cases where states declared war, and the national government had to clean up the mess. By specifically saying that only the federal government can declare war, the Constitution prevents conflict between the states and the national
This complaint was written so that the colonists could have some say in whether a soldier can be quartered in their house, as they would gain consent to the action. Britain refused, and the quartering continued. After the colonists gained their independence, the governmental body of the United States wanted to make sure that quartering could not occur, and never without the consent of the house owner. They, in Amendment 3 of the Bill of Rights, stated “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law” (U.S. Cong.).
Well, in the second paragraph in the Declaration of Independence, it states: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” but, this doesn’t mean that we can just revolt. There has to be a logical reason, and just not agreeing with the president does not call for a revolution. Even our founding fathers knew that when they wrote this historical document. I think that although people don’t always agree with the president, it doesn’t mean that they have the right to call for revolution, and it certainly doesn’t give them the right to hurt those who support him. But, those who do support him, need to work on explaining it to those who don’t and they have to learn not to hurt those who support Clinton.
They ruled that the 1st amendment did not guarantee ultimate freedom of speech and anyone violating the government could be overthrown by the state. The historical impact that the case was made mostly from Justice Brandeis, who stated that immediate serious and evil threats should be the only ones that are taken seriously enough to strip away someone’s granted rights. Brandeis’s opinion was put to use in 1969 when the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which is when the court overruled the decision. Yes, there are laws to help protect the natural-born citizens of this country, but if they can be taken and maneuvered to make sure the courts get what they want, why have
According to the Tenth Amendment of the constitution, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”. There have been moments in history where Congress has implemented laws that states felt were unconstitutional. The Constitution gave states the ability to counter the federal government’s power through the Judiciary branch of government, when they feel a law is unconstitutional. The Founders of our nation gave Congress enumerated powers to pass legislation that needs to be abided by all states and citizens. At times Congress will overstep its powers by enacting laws that are unconstitutional and the states have the right to challenge those powers.
For example, Henry Knox, Secretary of War in 1789, wrote to President George Washington that, “The Indians being the prior occupants, possess the right of the soil. It cannot be taken from them unless by their free consent, or by the right of conquest in case of a just war” (Document B). Which means that the Native Americans were protected of their rights of staying on American land, since they were the first to be on the land, and they could only be removed if they agreed or lost by war. However, the US government would trick Native American Tribes to agree to unfair treaties and this would be major mistakes that were being made, because it was still unfair to them, but was constitutional since they were willing to agree to these treaties. Soon after Andrew Jackson, achieved his political goals of expanding into the west.
On the contrary, Jefferson argued that the Constitution reserved all other powers to states and that Hamilton could not have a national bank because the federal government was not empowered to do so. But, he was wrong. Congress is permitted to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” to carry out other powers that is specifically granted. The national bank was something to look forward to because it would keep the nation’s money organized and under
The Eleventh Amendment The Eleventh Amendment was passed in the 1800s to stop states from being sued without their consent. The amendment was first created so a citizen from another state without their permission could not sue states. Now the eleventh amendment has been expanded to mean that a citizen from another state, a citizen of its own state, or the government/citizen of a foreign country cannot sue a state unless they give permission. This amendment changed America by giving more power to the states by taking it from the Supreme Court. This report will show this by telling the its creation, people’s feelings towards it, the debates/controversies of it, affect and court cases involving the amendment, and how the government has violated
Bodenhamer it discusses in depth the debate about our First Amendment rights and what control the government has over them. In the article it says, “government could not restrict speech unless it posed a known, immediate threat to public safety.”(13). This idea wasn’t brought to the court 's attention until Schenck v. The United States were Schenck tried to convince draft age men to resist the draft. This was deemed as not protected by our First Amendment because the Supreme Court said that anything that causes a threat to public safety is not protected by our First Amendment rights. Based on multiple articles about our right to free speech it’s a common consensus your freedom of speech is limited only if it is meant to provoke violent
Marsha law was made to protect the people in time of war when there was no time to wait on politics. Furthermore, that is what President FDR did. One sentence from the president, with good reason, could change everything for Americans. All of this lead to the New York Times article “A Discredited Supreme Court Ruling that still Technically Stands.” This article talks about how the Court was able to pass this law
United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943). In this case the President’s executive orders come into question as well, but instead of being based on the violation of the person not relocating, it is focused on the violation of a curfew. The court upheld that the executive order was, as well, necessary as a protective measure in a time of war. Because of this the president 's orders and the implementation of a curfew on Japanese Americans in wartime were decided to be constitutional. The court claims that “In determining validity of regulations imposing curfew on persons of Japanese ancestry in military area created under authority of Executive Order, the regulations, under the circumstances, were measures for purpose of safeguarding the military area, at time of threatened air raids and invasion by Japanese forces, from danger of sabotage and espionage.” 18 U.S.C.A.
The 1st Amendment shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. The framers believed that it was necessary to have the ability to share ideas to have the government to be able to be a democracy. The amendment was then brought to the Supreme Court. Hugo Black gave his input by saying, “The Framers knew that free speech is the friend of change and revolution. But they also knew that it is always the deadliest enemy of tyranny.” This is only some of the history of how the framers thought that the first amendment was necessary to have in the constitution.
The main purpose of the act was to have the president and congress approach war efforts with “collective judgement,” yet the act itself seems to allow the president to bypass congress just as how presidents Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon did in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The act was supposed to correct the errors of such wars, but it really does not address the issue of powers between the executive and legislative branches effectively. In essence the president can declare war in the emergency when the United States is under attack, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and the Pentagon however, he is restricted from actually enacting war, meaning he can only say that there will be war, but he cannot start organizing and sending troops to hostile countries without the formal consent of congress. Therefore, the war powers act attempts to decrease the president’s power to enact war, but it violates the constitution and bypasses congressional authorization for war by permitting the president to send troops to hostile countries for 90