Essay on Bennis V. Michigan

The First Amendment states that "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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress

"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." (Amendment I, U.S. Constitution).

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 to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for e redress of grievances.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. Adopted on 15 December 1791, it is one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.

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 to assemble peacefully, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Our first amendment to the United States Constitution reads; 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

“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

When talking about the First Amendment, the law protects us from freedom of speech and free exercise of religion and it also stops Congress from making any new law to prohibit free speech and free exercise. The case involving a Christian printer who refused to print gay pride T-shirts. The printer declined the printing job for T-shirts promoting a gay pride festival on religious grounds, but he did offer the customer to help them find other local printers to do the work for the same price. Based on the information that was provided the printer had a history of rejecting other orders for shirts promoting sexually explicit material/actions and violence.

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

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.

Upon arrival I made contact with the victim, Seymour Owens. Owens advised he had received a letter in the mail a few days prior stating he had won the lottery. The letter stated Owens had won $250,000.00 and all he needed to collect his winnings was to pay the tax from his winnings and the money would release the funds to him. At approximately 0600 hours, he went to Walmart located at 174 Cypress Point Pkwy, Palm Coast as the letter instructed. Owens proceeded to purchase 5 $100.00 ITunes gift cards with his credit card. Immediately after the purchase Owens threw away the letter he had received as well as the receipts for

The First Amendment states Congress will have no right to prohibit or create laws against free speech, press, or religion. This documents in written word that all forms of speech and press are legal in the United States. Therefore,

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."

"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." (Bill of Rights)

During this time, the United States Supreme Court expanded and contracted the reach of the mail fraud statute, finally merging the various components in Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (1989). From its origins in 1872 to approximately the middle of the twentieth century, the mail fraud statute's reach was considerable. It was only necessary that the scheme to defraud should be devised or intended to be devised and a letter placed in the post office for the purpose of executing the scheme or attempting to do so. The breadth of the statute was extended two years later when the United States Supreme Court held, to satisfy the mailing requirement, it is sufficient for the mailing to be incident to an essential part of the scheme or a step in the plot. This broad standard remained until Kann v. United States, 322 U.S. 88 (1944). In Kann v. United States, the defendants were corporate officers and directors who were accused of creating a dummy corporation in order to divert profits into their own pockets. As part of this fraudulent scheme, the defendants “allowed” the corporation to issue checks payable to the both of them. The defendants cashed the checks at local banks, which then mailed the checks to the drawee banks for collection. The court held that the mailing of the cashed checks to the drawee banks could not supply the mailing element of the mail fraud charges. The defendant's fraudulent scheme had reached fruition. "It was immaterial to them, or to any consummation of the scheme, how the bank which paid or credited the check would collect from the drawee bank. The federal mail fraud statute does not purport to reach all frauds, but only those limited instances in which the use of the mails is a part of the execution of the fraud, leaving all other cases to be dealt with by appropriate state law” (Kann, 323