Thus, while the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion goes a long way, it does not serve to protect acts judged to be morally licentious, such as poly amorous marriages. Children cannot be required to execute the flag salute which is forbidden by religious belief… Similarly freedom of speech, often defended by the courts, does not extend to the seditious utteran... ... middle of paper ... ... Through the years many changes have taken place, and technologies have been discovered, yet our Constitution remains. Some say that the Constitution was written for people hundreds of years ago, and in turn is out of step with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far.
Because of government corruption, economic inequality, and a corporation dominated free market I think it truly is the worst of times to be an American. It needs to be said that in no way is America a terrible place to live. In the constitution the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights lay out the basic concepts of freedom that we all take for granted, but are not shared around the world. We have the freedom of religion which guarantees that Americans have the right to practice any religion that they choose or even no religion at all. Government is unable to make one religion the official religion of the United States or tax citizens to support a religion.
One should cultivate a res... ... middle of paper ... ... what is right and wrong morally will have complete power, which can easily lead to a tyrannical ruler. Thoreau says we should not obey unjust laws - yet, if everyone did this, people would begin to call 'unjust' laws that they did not particularly like or that were hard to follow. In addition, this exhortation is completely against Biblical teaching. We are to obey governing authorities unless their laws go against God's law. Minorities can influence the government, but not in the way that Thoreau advises.
The Voting Act gives everyone the right to vote without discrimination. Obama’s election aroused hope that racial discrimination no longer exist and that the three laws are working. However, the challenge on Obama’s citizenship proved that U.S. policies are discriminatory. The fact that after Obama’s election they started to challenge him on his U.S. citizenship proved that they wanted him out of the election. The Voting Act was in place but they just ignored it and started to attack his citizenship.
Fulll Faith and ... ... middle of paper ... ...ough a process they decided upon. As I said, I'm not a big fan of the state as sovreign concept, but it's what we have right now. Unless we are going to abandon that concept, it is up to the state to deal with matters of how their own constitution should be interpreted. Other than prohibition (which many say in hindsight was a terrible idea) the only time we limit what a state can do within its own territory is when otherwise it would violate the right of an individual as a US citizen. In summary, if I could write the constitution as I saw fit, states wouldn't have rights and marriage policy would be set by the federal government.
Throughout history, the United States Constitution has been put to the test over the issue of free speech. The First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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." Even though free speech is one of the core American values proudly embedded in each citizen, some poopAmericans find themselves torn between whether or not to limit the freedom of speech on behalf of hate speech. Most law-abiding citizens disagree with hate speech, but must realize even speech that promotes hate, racism, and even crime is still protected by the Constitution of the United States. Free speech should not be limited, because it would infringe on one of the basic rights of Americans and would prevent students in public universities from practicing their freedom to learn.
There will always be different view points on how the election should be financed but the truth is, not everyone will be satisfied with the Supreme Court's decision. It is difficult to determine how far political funding and donations can go until democracy is forgotten. The First Amendment is perhaps the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The framers intended the Constitution to be more of a foundation, and not a set of laws. As a result, the first amendment is vague and does not limit the influence a corporation can exhibit on elections or campaigns.
The controversy that must be discussed is whether or not this legislation fully or in part has violated the Constitution and/or endangered our civil liberties in any way. John Kerry former presidential candidate is opposed to the patriot act stating ?We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time.? John Kerry is right in suggesting that the patriot act is thinning our freedoms.
A lot of people argue that immigrants should not have the same rights as an American citizen, but that idea is not so American, is it? America is known as the land of the free,but if people who come here to make a life for themselves, legally, are denied of their rights we are selling false hope. When the Constitution was written, the founding fathers had everyone in mind, but now people are starting to tweak that idea. If memory serves well, the 5th Amendment explicitly states that no person shall be be held to answer for a crime unless a jury is present nor should be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Note that it says no person, it does not say everyone excluding foreign nationals.
There are two sides to the debate: one being that the flag should be protected by law, and one being that it should not because it restricts free speech. There have been times when Congress has tried to pass laws protecting the flag, but Supreme Court as struck those laws down by deeming them as “violating the constitutional guarantee of free speech, and hence unconstitutional” (Wall, 1995). However, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling of the laws being unconstitutional, there are many advocates that are still trying to pass flag protection laws by amending the Constitution to allow it. This cannot be done. The constitution should not be amended to protect the flag because it would be a violation to our first amendment: our right to free speech.