No Continuous Solutions Are there any resolutions for conflicting constitutional amendments? In recent years, the first and fourteenth amendments of the United States constitution has came into conflict over the nature and purpose of the aforementioned amendments. In other words, the intentions of the first amendment is in conflict with the intentions of the fourteenth amendment, notwithstanding the first and fourteenth amendments purposes are the same, to provide rights for the People in order to live a peaceful life within our society. The first amendment of the US constitution guarantees the People the right to live in a society without laws establishing a state mandated religion, and without laws prohibiting the free exercise of any chosen …show more content…
The Supreme Court main objective is to review cases in which constitutionality is questioned. The Supreme Court opinions change in cases involving the constitutionality of the first amendment rights and fourteenth amendment rights. Case in point, Hobby lobby, the craft store chain, had a case that made it to the Supreme Court. “Hobby Lobby dealt with the right of an employer on religious grounds to deny Obamacare coverage to its employees if that coverage included contraceptive devices, which the employer deemed to be abortifacient,” according to James Zirin, the author of Does Religious Freedom Trump Other Constitutional Rights? This is Hobby Lobby’s attempt to exempt their selves from a law by claiming that providing funds for contraceptive devices infringe on their religious liberty. However, Hobby Lobby’s argument implies that their right to religion is more important than that of the females’ right to reproductive choice and equal protection under the law. This suggests there is no end to this conflict, especially since businesses now have first amendment rights. But the Supreme Court subscribed to their argument, and gave a majority opinion in favor of a company’s freedom of religion, while mitigating the fourteenth amendment. It was so ordered, Hobby Lobby does not have to participate in covering …show more content…
Hodges. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the fourteenth amendment, equal protection under the law, and prohibited state bans on same-sex marriage in the United States, in which according to dissenters of same-sex marriage, will reduce their right to religious freedoms. The change in rulings from the Hobby Lobby case to the Obergefell v. Hodges has brought an increase of intensity to this conflict between the first, and fourteenth amendments, reiterating there is no solution for the turmoil between the first and fourteenth amendments when the Supreme Court opinions wavers. According to David Savage, The Author Of Battles Over Religious Freedom Are Sure To Follow Same-Sex Marriage Ruling, “[t]he close divide among the justices almost ensures that new legal battles lie ahead. This divide reflects the inherent conflict between the first and fourteenth amendment.” The Supreme Court is trying to balance the conflict, however, with an unsuspected outcome—the Religious Freedom Restoration
This example of a Supreme Court case shows that the court is not above politics. Even though most Americans, including government officials, practiced some form of Christianity, the judges were not willing to compromise the information in the Constitution for the popular beliefs of individuals. I agree with the Supreme Court in its decision to ban the practice of prayer in public schools. Not only does it violate the Constitution, but it encroaches on our freedom of thought and action. Being excluded from a public classroom because of personal beliefs does not sound just.
The constitutional right of gay marriage is a hot topic for debate in the United States. Currently, 37 states have legal gay marriage, while 13 states have banned gay marriage. The two essays, "What’s Wrong with Gay Marriage?" by Katha Pollitt and "Gay "Marriage": Societal Suicide" by Charles Colson provide a compare and contrast view of why gay marriage should be legal or not. Pollitt argues that gay marriage is a constitutional human right and that it should be legal, while Colson believes that gay marriage is sacrilegious act that should not be legal in the United States and that “it provides a backdrop for broken families and increases crime rates” (Colson, pg535). Both authors provide examples to support their thesis. Katha Pollitt provides more relevant data to support that gay marriage is a constitutional right and should be enacted as law in our entire country, she has a true libertarian mindset.
People have been debating the meaning of the Second Amendment since its ratification on December 15, 1791. One side feels that the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution to protect collective rights as seen in ”United States v. Miller,” while the opposing side feels that it was meant to protect individual
First, it is imperative to comprehend the implications of the case Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby. This court case is still in litigation and pertains to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), religious freedom, and woman’s access to contraceptives. The ACA requires all insurance companies to cover forms of female birth control. The ACA also requires l...
The court system has jumped back and forth throughout the years and this may seem very confusing to the average person but they’ve never changed their mind on the big cases that were said in the previous paragraph. But the court seems to be sporadic in its decisions outside of these big cases. It all starts in 1962 when they held that prayer in the public schools was a violation of the first amendment.
The Supreme Court, which sees almost 150 petitions per week, called cert petitions, must carefully select the cases that they want to spend their time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn’t select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overrun, so they have put in place a program to weed through the court cases to pick out the small number they will discuss. There are a few criteria that are used to judge whether or not a case will be tried. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another one of the Supreme Court’s decisions for they will investigate these in order to withhold or draw back their conclusion that they made in their court case. Another is the case’s party alignment: sometimes the justices will pick cases that will align with their party beliefs, like trying to get a death row inmate off of his death sentence. They also make claims about the “life” of the case- the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases- they do not try to go back in time and re-mark a case that has long since been decided (Savage 981). Lastly, they like to take cases where the lower courts did not decide with one another -these cases can have t o do with interpretations of the law that have been left up to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982).
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
In 1787, The United States of America formally replaced the Articles of Confederation with a wholly new governing document, written by the delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This document, known as the Constitution, has served as the supreme law of our land for the past 228 years. It has stood the test of time and a majority of Americans still support it today (Dougherty). The Constitution was designed in a way that allows for it to be amended, in order to address changing societal needs. Article V discusses the process by which the Constitution can be altered. This feature has enabled it to stay in effect and keep up with current times. The Constitution should not be rewritten every 19 years because it would not only weaken its importance, but it would also hurt foreign relations and continuously rewriting it would give political parties too much power.
The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people
Americans tend to hold their great historical documents as sacred, giving those documents an incredible influence on American politics even today. Hundreds of years after the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were written, these documents still continue to shape American political culture. The Constitution seems to be the most powerful of American historical documents, giving rise to a constitutional politics in which every aspect of the document plays a vital role. The most heated political debates are often over the constitutionality, or lack thereof, concerning the issue in question. Differing interpretations of the Constitution allow for opposite sides of such debates to have points of view which are both seemingly valid even when they are mutually exclusive. Debates over specific issues then become debates over interpretations of the Constitution. Two of the most widely and heatedly debated aspects of the Constitution are the concepts of separation of powers and federalism.
Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, Freedom of practice, Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, Freedom to petition the government, and Freedom to assemble.
The eighth amendment of the U.S Constitution has been a key part to the justice system from the moment it was created. It provides the basic rights that everyone deserves. The eighth amendment is very important because it guarantees many “freedom from” rights. For example, it protects Americans from cruel and unusual punishments. Without the eighth amendment many people would be punished in an inhumane manner based on the morals of the judge. The eighth amendment is crucial to the U.S Constitution because it promises that all citizens are guaranteed their rights, including the citizens who are felons and display criminal acts.
...nvolving for-profit corporations. Hobby Lobby Inc. is one of the plaintiffs. David Green and his family are the owners and say their Christian beliefs clash with parts of the laws’ mandates for comprehensive coverage. Companies that refuse to provide the coverage could be fined up to $1.3 million daily. The Obama administration has defended the law and federal officials say they have already created rules exempting certain nonprofits and religiously affiliated organizations from the requirements. The cases accepted by the Supreme Court were Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius.
Multiple had argued whether or not this act was unconstitutional. Many believe because of itś going against to the first amendment, it was unconstitutional. “Abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”(Madison, 1789) . These amendments were made to protect our country and now the many who fought for those amendments, are going against them. The amendments did their job well of keeping peace and fairness between citizen’s rights, as many could tell by the acts of the citizens when those rights were taken away. The freedom of
Roe v. Wade: the Supreme Court case legalizing a woman's right to choose abortion has been around our entire lives. In 27 years, memories of back alley clinics have faded - the past is past, right? Wrong. It's too soon to start taking reproductive freedoms for granted. The next president will appoint two or three Supreme Court justices, potentially changing the Court's position on this pivotal case. George W. Bush supports the Republican call for a constitutional amendment outlawing abortions; do you think he, if elected, would appoint pro-choice justices? And why is it that while the majority of Americans support choice, the majority of Congress votes anti-choice? Are we supposed to just stand by and watch as the government tries to legislate our bodies?