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
Preclearance was a constitutional response to voter discrimination, but it was also unconstitutional to apply it to states based on past issues (Sensenbrenner, 2016). Thus, the law’s strongest protections have been rendered meaningless. Clearly they never heard of Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is when a dominant group uses its control of the government to abuse the rights of minority groups (Magstadt, p.78, 2015). Executing laws that place restrictions on minorities sounds all too familiar.
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
Title: How the Red Scare Relates to “The Crucible” Red scare formed in 1919 the climax of the Red scare is when the conflict between the Soviet Union and the United states intensifies During the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. It caused the Americans thinking that the communists are a big Threat to them. The United States took actions to prevent the red scare taking over the United States which caused McCarthyism to form. McCarthyism is a practice of false accusations without any proof. The play “The Crucible” is about the Salem witch trials which happened around in the early 1600’s, basically people are falsely being accused and killed because lawyers and people think that they had something to do with the devil.
However, Justice Goldberg took a more refined approach than Justice Douglas, focusing solely on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. He argued that the Connecticut statute infringed upon the un-enumerated yet fundamental right of privacy in marriage, directly opposing the Ninth Amendment. When the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, states were prohibited from "abridging fundamental personal liberties" guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (Griswold v. Connecticut). Justice Goldberg asserted that these two amendments in conjunction were sufficient evidence of the unconstitutionality of the Connecticut statute. (Griswold v.
There was a clear lesson here: immigration regulation is a matter for the federal government. Any attempt to regulate immigration laws where Congress had already regulated it even interrelated efforts, are unconstitutional. In later cases, the Court made it distinct that there is opportunity for state and local participation in the regulation of the lives of immigrants, although not inevitably in the regulation and enforcement of laws governing the movement of immigration itself. In the case of DeCanas v. Bica (1976), the question that the Court was given was whether a California law that established sanctions on business owners who hired non-citizens unofficial to work in the United States violate on federal immigration powers. The Court disapproved
Roosevelt 's executive order 9066, was legal because the executive order was issued during war, Some might say it was illegal because it was going against ‘equal protection of the law ' clause of the 14th Amendment. Supreme Court justified the executive order as a wartime necessity (http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp.). Laws can also give additional powers to the President but when using an executive order, the Congress can override it with a new law. In section 1 of the 14th amendment, it states that all natural citizens should be treated fairly and there should be no state enforcing a law to abridge the rights and privileges of citizens; without due process of laws. Therefore, President Roosevelt created an executive order, creating the
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
America is pushing the constitution by trying to stop the freedom of speech, by the state governments and the capital. The first amendment (Freedom of speech) says “Freedom of speech is the concept of the inherent human right to voice one's opinion publicly without fear of censorship or punishment.” They are trying to stop us from saying what we want by shutting us up when the police come, we have the right to say what we want to, the police can’t stop it. They don’t want us to say what we want to because they think it will be hurtful to the government, like saying against a law they put out, or protesting to something they do. They are canceling out what we are trying to tell them. Stopping people from saying what they want people to
The truth is the second amendment or the right to bear arms is still in place to protect us from being at the mercy of a dictator. In fact Piers Morgan stated “The second Merrell3 amendment isn’t there for duck hunting, it’s there to protect us from tyrannical government and street thugs, 1776 will commence again if you try to take away our firearms. (Gun control 2016)” Some Americans may also take freedom of religion for granted. Only having one religion would be simple, but what Americans do not realize is that countries that do only have one religion normally have a dictator. When speaking poorly about Muhammad Muslims face punishments resulting in death.