Analysis Of The First Amendment Of The Constitution

The First Amendment is the first section of the Bill of Rights and is often considered the most important part of the U.S Constitution because it guarantees the citizens of United States the essential personal freedoms of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the freedom to petition the Government. Thanks to the rights granted by the First Amendment, Americans are able to live in a country where they can freely express themselves, speak their mind, pray without interference, protest in peace and where their opinions are taken into consideration, which is something not many other nationalities have the fortune of saying. The Founding Fathers were the framers of the Constitution of the U.S., and the responsible for the

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is part of our countries Bill of Rights. The first amendment is perhaps the most important part of the U.S. Constitution because the amendment guarantees citizens freedom of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise grievances with the Government. In addition, amendment requires that there be a separation maintained between church and state.

The first amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech and expression. One particular form of expression that has grown in popularity is body art; also known as tattoos. This creative form of expression can be displayed anywhere on the body. It is because of this same freedom that I believe there should be restrictions on what and where a tattoo is placed. Some feel as if the Marine Corps shouldn’t have any tattoo restrictions. But I strongly disagree. This Organization has been built on so many great principles, like our Corps Values: “Honor, Courage, and Commitment.” Then we have our official United States Marine Corps (USMC) slogan: “The Few, The Proud, The Marines”. We have a reputation for being a professional, disciplined fighting force. Granted, society will always change. From the modern day fads, the fashion statements, to the personal beliefs plus the need to be an individual; we as a people can change in the blink of an eye. But should we allow that to dictate the USMC? Should we change our foundation because of our society? Although tattoos have become a part of the societal norm, in order to maintain good order, discipline, and a professional military appearance; restrictions must remain in place.

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.”[1] 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

coming over from previous mother country, England. In fact it was so important it was part of the very 1st amendment, including freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Since then it has been a struggle to determine whether or not certain instances would qualify as hindering the 1st’s claim to the right of Religion. An important case where that occurred is the Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye V.S. City of Hialeah (1993). In the case the city of Hialeah is targeting a specific group based on their religious views. On the other side of the fence the church group argues that the state laws are going against the first amendment right to religion.

The Founding Fathers tried to protect citizen’s rights to religious choice and attempted to keep the government form religious interference. The purpose was not to disallow religion but to give the people a choice of whom and where to worship. Today, the views are not the same. Freedom of religion is being interpreted as freedom of religion as long as it is acceptable with everyone else. The Founding Fathers also wanted separation of church and state to protect the church from government interference. The concept has now become removal of religion from all aspects of government. The cases of Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU are two prime examples, both with different results.

Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.” (Reynolds, 98 U.S. 145,167). The Reynolds court also placed a grave emphasis on a quote Thomas Jefferson wrote, “[b]elieving with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; …the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions” (1671). The enforced the criminal prosecution against Reynolds because they believed they could regulate action even if they could not interfere with belief or opinion.

American citizens, provided that they do not insight some form of disturbance or riot (see Chaplinski vs.

The First Amendment to the Constitution prevents the government from impeding the free exercise of religion, disavowing intervention when a religion disagrees with the policies of government. This fundamental liberty has recently come under attack in response to the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage in June, 2015. In response, individual states and the federal government have passed religious freedom laws protecting religious liberty for business owners. The free exercise of religion is a fundamental liberty that should not be abridged by government, and the implementation of religious freedom statutes is necessary to protect the values of the First Amendment.

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.

The First Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. The fundamental ideas behind the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause are both involved in the literature of this statement. Both of these clauses support the separation of government involvement in religious affairs. Nonetheless, the Establishment Clause is distinct from the former because it specifically “requires a degree of separation between church and state” (Rossum, 281).

Let me first start off by saying that the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; the freedom of speech, is technically a right. Shall it be a privilege though? Do people verbally abuse the right to speak what they want; when they want? Legally people have the right to say anything they want and no one has the right to stop them. You may not like what people voice or some of the words they may use but lawfully you can not cease them. That being said, when does things being said go too far? At what point are people so wrapped up in their own opinions that they’re closed off to what another individual might have to say?

For centuries, religion has been and still is a very controversial topic; especially when it plays a role in the government. Together, their relationship causes agitated debates and causes what is constitutional/unconstitutional court cases. These discussions are examples of our American rights and evaluate our constitutional beliefs. 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” (Madison, 1789).

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”. March v. Chambers was a court case that involved the establishment clause. Chambers was a member of the Nebraska state legislature who began each session with prayer by a

Therein in these justifications lies a basis for the separation of church and state and freedom of religion that are written into the very Constitution of the United States, and similar measures have been taken by most other advanced countries. In fact, several Supreme Court cases including Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), Lee v. Weisman (1992), and Allegheny County v. ACLU (1989), have established guidelines that are designed to prevent the government from involving itself with religion in a preferential manner, though this is not to say that freedom of religion means freedom from religion in the U.S., nor should that ever be the case (Bardwell 3).