The discussion of whether felony disenfranchisement laws violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be seen the Supreme Court case, Hayden v. Pataki. This court case was filed in 2003 and the plaintiffs of the case are challenging the felony disenfranchisement laws of New York. The plaintiffs argued that these laws were a violation of the second section of the Voting Rights Act because it disenfranchised a larger number of blacks and Latinos in prison than whites (“Key Issues in Hayden v. Pataki”). In the end, a majority of the judges ruled that the section 2 of the VRA is too ambiguous, thus the section cannot be applied to the felony disenfranchisement laws in New York, as the original intent of the VRA was not focused on felon disenfranchisement laws (“Key Issues in Hayden v. Pataki”). However, based on the dissenting opinions of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the second section of the Voting Rights Act clearly states that no state should be able to pass a law that emplaces a “voter qualification”, which bars a certain racial minority’s ability to vote (Goldstein
[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.
Hate crime What distinguishes a hate crime from other crimes is an underlying motivation based on the victim’s group membership. There has been much debate over the constitutionality of hate crime laws and which groups (if any) should be protected by such legislation. Those against hate crime laws argue that it is a violation of First Amendment protections of free, association, and freedom of thought. The Supreme Court confirmed that freedom of thought is implied by the First Amendment in R.A.V. v. St. Paul which those against hate crime laws argue makes such laws unconstitutional.
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
Madison sticks to Jeffersonian ideals when he opposed the International Improvement Bill of 1817, because the power to regulate commerce is not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution. In the message he wrote to Congress, He illustrates that this authority belongs to the states, which is an act of strict interpretation of the constitution. It also indicated the problem of sovereignty between states and the federal government. In fact, this action directly opposed that of the previous president Thomas Jefferson in regards to the Embargo Acts. Jefferson uses loose interpretation to say that the federal government does have the power to regulate commerce, while Madison complies with his party's beliefs of strict constructionism.
Should the Confederate flag be banned on public property? The Confederate flag is one of the greatest controversial, provocative icons of American culture, and even has a significant presence out of the country. There is proof to suggest that just observing the Confederate flag makes a person act fairly more racist. Some people believe that the Confederate flag is racist.
Through the events of history, blacks and whites were lynched, but blacks were primarily victims of lynching. On page 606, ‘Calling Nooses What They Are – Terrorism’ George Curry makes a history reference, stating: “Statistics compiled by the NAACP in 1921, the 3,224 lynching’s in the U.S between 1889 – 1918, 2,522 were of black people.” This shows that a small percentile of white men, were lynched compared to black men. This is a prime example, of a hate crime, which was directed towards black people, based on hatred and racism.
Martin Luther King Jr.” by Robert F. Kennedy, where both talk about Martin Luther King and how he protests for freedom, because by demanding for freedom, it makes people more aware of the situation whereas if it is not, no one will really care enough to give the oppressed their freedom. According to Charles Euchner, in his book, Nobody Turn Me Around: A People's History of the 1963 March on Washington, he says on page 58 “-that gradual improvements will not satisfy blacks anymore. Conflict could turn into a bloodbath unless the American people redeem the promise of freedom.” The text evidence suggests that progressive, slow improvements will not be satisfactory, and that the conflict could become violent if the Americans do not give their people freedom. This example backs up the claim that freedom has to be demanded because their freedom has not been given to the African Americans; they had to protest for it and that there could be conflict over it, since they didn’t get their freedom easily.
I never wanted to I thought he was just being mean and punishing me. But he wasn 't he was just trying to make me better. Which he did. And to this day I appreciate him because without those endless night going to the YMCA working out I do would not be as good as I am today. Basketball really shaped my life.
Under the first amendment, it states that speech that would cause harm is not protected. Speech that leads to riots or physical violence is not protected by the first amendment. Everyone has different opinions on how speech should be protected, and most opinions are valid in one way or another. A recent conflict regarding freedom of speech is the Berkeley riot.
She posed a “relatively serious” threat to the country and its’ citizens. Issue The issue and question at hand was whether the 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act of California violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, the other question was that did the Criminal Syndicalism Act also violate the First Amendment.
This was said becuase the 1st amendment keeps the government from determining when and how people should worship. The authorization of the law introducing a prayer was opposing what the amendment stands for therefore it was unconstitutional. Many early americans have been troubled in the past by religious enforcements and persecution. The Court declared that the Establishment Clause denies the government in having a say in religious exercises. Justice Hugo Black wrote the majority opinnion stating that the freedom of religion means that is not the government 's buisness tocompose official prayers for any group of American citizens.
The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification. Thomas Jefferson also asserts that he doesn’t like the fact that there is no rules and regulations in regard to office terms, and how the officers could get re-elected and serve for like, thus, will result with corruption
He begins by trying to encourage the people to see that the constitution will take away what they have fought so hard for. He continues by giving the reasons as to why the people should question the constitution. He mainly points out that there is a reason the Constitutional Convention was held in secrecy and that the people should recognize and be unsettled about this. Another reason he has no faith in the constitution and suggests that the people should not either is because they want it ratified quickly. He believes this is because they do not want the people to look over the constitution too thoroughly and find flaws or areas that will take away from the people having control.
He mapped out what he wanted in a good government to be. What Jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence was not supported by the dreams of the new Constitution. The constitution did not support the style of government talked about by T.J. because for one, there wasn 't much room for the power of the people to change their government if they see fit. Secondly it did not give the citizens of the U.S. clear, mapped out “unalienable rights”. Lastly the Constitution did not provide guards for citizens future security in the government as laid out by T.J. in the