Arguments Against Trump's Rights

All U.S citizens have First Amendment rights. They all have the right of freedom of speech, religion, press, petition, and assembly. Freedom of Religion enforces the separation of church and state. Freedom of Speech allows people to express themselves without the interference or regulation by the government. Freedom of the Press allows people to express themselves through dissemination and publication. Freedom to Assemble allows individuals to get together for lawful and peaceful purposes. Freedom to Petition give people the right to ask government to correct a problem. Even though there might be certain hate groups, protesters, or discriminators, they can also be protected by their rights only if it doesn't interfere with other people's rights or gets those rights taken away. I believe that all U.S citizens should be able to practice any right they choose to.

The passage analyzed in this independent study activity is a speech on immigration delivered by Donald J. Trump in Phoenix on August 31st, 2016. During his speech, Trump clearly asserted his hard-line approach to illegal immigration in United States.

America’s Founding Fathers believed in establishing a strong democracy that focused on the individual rights of man. The idea of moralities that humans naturally possess was a strong influence in the establishment of a country that attempts to provide a written decency that all should have a right to receive. The fourth amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with many others, created in the Bill of Rights has become seemingly infringed in the name of security and overall welfare to all.

The fourth amendment was made to protect "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."("Understanding search-and-seizure law", 2018).

While people have the right to protest and say what they want through words or actions, it is wrong to desecrate one’s country by burning the flag because it is disrespectful to the ones who have fought for the country. Many people are against it including the president, but he can not legally stop them from doing it. It is their constitutional right to protest this way because it is a form of speech and the Framers of the Constitution guaranteed freedom of speech and expression to the citizens of the United States with the First Amendment, which reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." (“Freedom of Speech”). They're getting their message across by using actions rather than words therefore they can not be told to do other wise according to the first amendment in the constitution (Kopan).

The fourth amendment of the constitution expresses that each individual have a right "to be secure in their persons, house, papers, and impacts against irrational pursuits and seizures, "might not be disregarded, and no warrant's should issue, but rather upon reasonable justification, supported by vow or affirmation and especially depicting the spot to be locked, and the persons or things to be seized.

The essence of protester’s argument is that the president and the government ought to respect what people in US demand and they should not be anxiety for citizen. So, what Trump Resistance argue is similar to Anthem.

The First Amendment gives us the right to free speech and religious practices. The Westboro Baptist Church has been the center of attention and protest for a long period of time based on so many things. For example they will protest at gay people’s funerals and the example above protesting at a military funeral. I don’t think that they should be able to protest at private events such a military funerals and personal matters in general no matter if it may be their rights or not. Unfortunately it has been ruled that they are able to protest freely and are protected because of their constitutional rights. It is great that these people can protest and say whatever they may feel but I do think there should be some type of restriction as to where

The Fourth Amendment protects persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const. amend IV. Absent a warrant, a search may be reasonable if officers obtain consent of a third party having actual common or apparent authority over the premises or items to be searched. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 171 (1974). Actual common authority over property hinges on the “mutual use . . . by parties generally having joint access or control.” Id. at 171 n.7. Should actual authority be absent, the search is still reasonable if officers reasonably believe, based on facts available, that the consenting party had authority over the premises. See Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 188 (1990).

The Bill of Rights was vaguely designed in order to keep the federal enumerated powers that are written in the Constitution so that people in the United States can be protected from wrong interpretations of the Constitution. Creating the Bill of Rights aided in proposing a balance of powers between people and government. In general, both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were ambiguously written as an attempt to protect each party for the appropriate cases. However, when the 9th Amendment was added, it was controversial as to whether it needed to even exist since many defenders and offenders of the amendment both stated that it merely reaffirms the previous eight amendments and the 14th, but of course there are arguments stating the

One of the worst Presidents in American History was George W. Bush. He is a war criminal, he has enacted war onto a country who did not attack, or declare war on us.

I agree with you Anika. As an American citizen, you shouldn’t be ignorant of your rights because situations may occur and all you have to fall back on is you Constitutional Rights. For example, when you’re home and the police busted in your house. What would you do? Would you continue to let them invade your privacy or would you ask for the search warrant? The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable searches and seizures. If the cops were to find something during the search but without a warrant, and anything they find is inadmissible in court. As long as you know your rights everything will be the fine.

Ever since the Bush Administration and the events of September 11, 2001, the American people have dealt with the government taking away bits and bits of their constitutional rights. Such rights like the freedom of association, speech, unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to legal representation, speedy and public trial, and the right to liberty. Any new law that infringes on these rights ands is created and passed is a bit of freedom being taken away. The government has limited individuals’ right to freedom of assembly by authorities seeking to repress the activities of those that are simply defending human rights. Censorship has also limited

As stated by Martin Luther King Jr., in this world, “there are two types of laws: just and unjust,” and I’m sure most everyone can see both types in our government. Many laws put in by the american government are seen as one that is an inalienable right while others are seen as unfair and need to be rejected immediately. However, in the 21st century, even if citizens believe such cruel laws should be changed, their first idea is normally to post something on the internet and rant about it. That right there is them practicing their 1st amendment right to the freedom of speech. In other words, it is the right of the people to be able to protest the unjust laws of the government, putting them in check of the power they have over the people. Even if they have this right to go against the government 's wishes, there have been many cases in history, such as protests in LA and Ferguson, Missouri, where protests turn to violent riots which result in unnecessary death and destruction. How can we stop these riots and violent acts without taking away the citizens right to the first amendment? Where do we draw the line to what citizens protest about? Well, we cannot write a law that prevents one from protesting his or her opinion. However, even though the majority of people may disagree with someone 's protest, they still have the right to the first amendment: Only if the protest they execute is civil and done in a peaceful manner. If citizens decide they need to protest in order to

In conclusion, Donald Trump is both charismatic and holds himself in high esteem, he is eager to explain how exceptionally well he did in the election and does this in great length in his speeches. He even has a framed map of the 2016 election results displayed in the White House (Lozada, 2017). In his recent speech in Poland, Trump made reference to the ‘West’ ten times. Beinart (2017) argues that in this context the West is not a geographical term, but a racial and religious one. Trump is unlike his predecessors, who acknowledged that democracy and capitalism were not Western, but the universal aspiration of humankind. Previous leaders of the US discussed globalisation as a process where America improved the world. However, Trump describes globalisation as a process by which the world cheats, weakens and threatens America. His words, ‘The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive’ (Trump, 2017), only makes sense if non-white, non-Christians are seen as invaders. Thus, this implies that anyone in America who is non-white and non-Christian is a threat. Trump, by describing that being Western is the essence to the US’s identity, is defining the US to be in opposition to many of its own people.