One such misconception is something that will surprise you. Many Americans believe that the government cannot prohibit its citizens from voting, but the truth is - if Americans read their Constitution, they would be shocked to see that in no where does it provide that Americans are forever entitled to the right to vote. With that arises the question – does America need a “Voting Rights” Amendment enumerated into the constitution? Quite frankly – Yes, yes it does. The problem with the current system is that voting is in fact an inferred right – Although accepted as a right by the general populace, the failure of the U.S. Constitution to directly enumerate it leaves it room for interpretation and manipulation.
The first amendment cannot be used as a shield to protect any person against criminal behavior. This ruling states that the first amendment cannot be used as an excuse to do whatever you want simply because your religion says that’s ok to do. Mr. Reynolds is allowed to believe that multiple partners are acceptable, but he is not allowed to practice that belief, according to the law of the United States. The Supreme Court ruling was quite inaccurate in that they think Mormon beliefs are wrong because they differ from their own beliefs. Because Mormon religion is a minority in this country, the rest of the United States feels that they have the right to regulate how the Mormon religion can and cannot be practiced.
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.
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
Modern Interpretation of The First Amendment The first Amendment of the United States Constitution says; “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.” Our fore fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution. A great deal of bills have been written and passed as legislation under the pretense that they would better outline the citizen’ rights and ensure their freedoms. Yet occasionally these laws are created with disregard to what is stated in our Constitution. At times they distort and twist the original meaning of the work, counter acting the purpose of creating the Amendments.
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 Right to Privacy by Robert Bork. Robert Bork's The Right of Privacy examined the landmark case Griswald v. Conneticut. Bork's "originalist" view proclaimed that Justice Douglas erroneously interpreted the right of privacy from the Constitution. The originalist view is that judges must strictly adhere to the language of the Constitution, thus people do not have a general right to privacy because it was never actually written into the Constitution. This view severely restricts judges in dealing with new issues that our forefathers could not have possibly envisioned.
Said clause (Article IV, Section 1, United States Constitution) insures that “full faith and credit” be given to the laws and judicial proceedings of all the states by all other states. That is, if a contract is signed in Arizona, one cannot simply move to Texas and the contract become null and void. The reason this clause can be a problem for those opposed to gay marriages is that some states are pushing to legalize or have legalized same-sex marriages or civil unions. The reason the national government cannot simply declare gay marriage illegal and thereby prevent the states from legalizing it is: 1. No authority is given to the national government (legislative branch) to make such a law; and 2.
I really hope that states who banned same-sex marriage changing this message and start recognizing individual’s rights based on equality and not theology. Because it does not affect society in any negative way, but shows progress. In conclusion, states should not have the authority to give recognition on marriages based on genders. If people can marry family under certain circumstances (NCSL, 2014) and people can get married to objects, why can’t same-sex be seen as legal in all states?
1. In the First Amendment, the clause that states “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” is based on the Establishment Clauses that is incorporated in the amendment. This clauses prohibits the government to establish a state religion and then enforce it on its citizens to believe it. Without this clause, the government can force participation in this chosen religion, and then punish anyone who does not obey to the faith chosen. This clause was in issue in a court case mentioned in Gaustad’s reading “Proclaim Liberty Throughout All the Land”.