Bill Of Rights Speech Analysis

Fulfilling it’s duty to interpret the Constitution the Supreme Court did rule in a way that seemed to make new law as suggested by Mr. Byrd, author of The Southern Manifesto. Further it appears that Mr. Byrd was generally correct in his assertion that race relations were generally amicable in the south. However, this amicability was predicated upon blacks “behaving” and not improving their conditions by accepting a separate but equal system of law. Therefore, in reality the amicability that hairy bird refers to in the southern Manifesto is not 1 of mutual respect and general fairness. Rather, It is forced by law and upheld by courts until Brown versus education. The problem was separate but equal, although the law, had been recognized

With regard to his judicial philosophy on the court bench, Brennan is often identified as a libertarian, yet such a label is a little misleading in the current age of the Tea Party movement. While the justice’s championing of the First Amendment in such cases as New York Times v. Sullivan (protecting the rights of the press to report without the fear of libel action) and Texas v. Johnson (affirming the legality of flag desecration) illustrates his support for maximising freedoms, it would be a mistake to consider him a crusader against big government. Instead, Brennan viewed government as a necessary corrective institution that could redress inequalities concerning representation and opportunity. As Frank I. Michelman notes in his book, Brennan

Gender equality, freedom of speech, the right to vote. These three things are familiar concepts to the modern American society, but just decades ago, these “basic human rights” were still foreign concepts that remained implied in the American Constitution. One of the major contributors, who crystallized these implications, was a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, William Brennan. Being a “...leader on the supreme court during most of his 34 years of service”, Brennan was critical in the making of many of today’s policies(Patrick). Through his many ideals and accomplishments in the areas of individual rights and court processing, which continue to affect society even today, it is undeniable

As Martin Luther King pours his heart into the crowds, his breathtaking soliloquy exemplifies the core feelings of justice when he says: “Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.” His dramatic and professional presentation achieves a sense of comfort and reassurance within every listener, letting the masses know everything will be alright. The Judicial System today shares the same motives, and strives for equality within American society today. Within each individual debate, each judge strives for fairness, blocking out all external influences. Nothing but the situation is taken at hand, and this ensures a consoling sense of parity within this nation today.Supreme Court verdicts have influenced Americans in many ways; however, among the most notable are the cases of New Jersey v. T.L.O which allows academic institutions to be kept safe through the students’ reduced expectancy of privacy, Grutter v. Bollinger which gives schools the ability to bask in the educational opportunities created by racial diversity, and Engel v. Vitale which creates a reassuring ecclesiastical separation

Distinctive within American history, the duration in which Earl Warren served as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1953 to 1969) witnessed a vigorous court fearless to challenge controversial issues. Changing the way Americans today perceive their relationship with their government, an activist court did much to expand the rights of the individual and the power of the federal government to enforce civil rights legislation. Not since then has the Supreme Court generated so much power in shaping American culture. And because of all what Earl Warren has done he is remembered as one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices in American history. Through all the cases during Earl Warren’s tenure I strongly believe that

Lewis sat quietly, thinking about the events from the day before. Nearly four years ago, his father, the brilliant and fair president, was discovered to be an illegal immigrant that never went through naturalization. When people heard about this, they were both outraged and concerned. Citizens across America were scared that the president wasn’t a trustful person the whole time, so they threatened to throw him out of the White House if he didn't resign peacefully. The President refused to leave and ordered the military to wipe out all the people threatening him, leading to absolute chaos. He hire assassins to get rid of opposing officials and created a totalitarian country for himself. President Norris changed the 1st Amendment out of paranoia and made it nearly impossible to oppose him. There was no way of criticizing the government or himself with press, assembly, and petition. He thought that he had so much control, that no one would speak against him, so he believed that it wasn’t necessary to remove the freedom of speech. As the president announced this, he thought that he was kind enough to give the people this freedom with the freedom of religion. Protesters fought

Non- orginalists, such as William Brennan, believe that the Framers of the Constitution did not want control over the intrepretations of law and the rights of government and the American citizens. Non-originalist believe to fully and appropriately serve the American people according to law, a Judge must take his or her fundamentals from the Constitution, but also be flexible to modern day circumstances. Brennan goes on to say “…the constitutional text over the years confirms any single poposition, it is that the demands of human diginity will never cease to evolve.” Brennan thinks that political power and judiciary action should be able to adapt to a different world from “the values of 1789” to present time enlightenment (Brennan). While challenging the originalists views, Brennan brings forth an example concerning the Eighth Amendment and capital punishment. The Eight Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, yet the death penalty is still legal in many parts of the United States. If an originalists can claim to follow the Constitution strictly and without new world interpretations, then surely death violates “a punishment must not be so severe as to be utterly and irreversibly degrading to the very essence of human dignity” (Brennan).

The United States of America was created by people who were not afraid to stand up for what they believed in. Together they fought, died, and built a new nation of freedom for all. However, the American Revolution would not have gained such widespread support without one man who believed in the freedom of speech. Thomas Paine risked his life to fight the British's censorship of the colonists and encouraged the people to fight back against the King's opposition. Paine fought for his ideals by illegally printing his book Common Sense, giving the people morale through The American Crisis, and becoming involved in the French Revolution through Rights of Man.

In order to find truth to anything, one must make multiple suggestions, ask many questions, and sometimes ponder the unspeakable. Without doing so, there would be no process of elimination; therefore, truth would be virtually unattainable. Now, in our attempts to either find truth, express our beliefs and opinions, or generally use the rights we are given constitutionally, we are often being criticized and even reprimanded. Our freedom to voice our opinion(s) is being challenged, as critics of free speech are taking offense to what seems like anything and everything merely controversial and arguably prejudice. As people continue to strive for a nation free of prejudice and discrimination, where everyone is equal, safe and

Freedom is defined as the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. There are different forms of freedom, two of which are physical and mental freedom. People advocate the rights of both physical and mental freedom of others who can not. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Malala Yousafzai fought for physical freedom whereas John F. Kennedy fought for mental freedom. In order to be completely free, someone must posses both physical and mental freedom.

For centuries, the success of a democratic society has been measured by its commitment to equality, a resounding principle central to our nation’s founding. The Enlightenment-inspired language of the Declaration of Independence, namely the age-old axiom that “all men are created equal,” pervades our perception of the American creed. However, nearly a century passed before the Lockean principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence began to bear the force of law. Entitling American citizens to due process and equal protection of the law, the Fourteenth Amendment, perhaps the most transformative Amendment of all, has inspired the steady progression of American society. Nonetheless, while the Amendment serves as the chief legal force behind the democratic goal of equality, questions regarding its achievement of that goal

America’s history is filled with constant arguing, debating, and bickering. Because America is so diverse and full of people with differing opinions, it is important that everyone is given a voice. The Bill of Rights is opened with the 1st amendment, which consists of the freedom of speech, religion, petition, press, and assembly. These are the cornerstones of American society, and the freedom to assemble has guided America to where it is today. This promise was a direct response to many events in colonial America, has been defended in court as shown is the case of the Village of Skokie vs. the National Socialist Party, and was pushed to its limit at the White Nationalist Rally in Charlottesville, yet the persistence of this right proves how controversy succumbs to the freedom of expression.

Artists across music genres are at the forefront of new protest songs in response to the rise of President Donald J. Trump and his words in the media. One political track, titled “Land of the Free” by Jo-Vaughn Virginie Scott, speaks to society through a bouncy beat in contrast to its blunt, politically-charged lyrics. Brooklyn based rapper Jo-Vaughn Virginie Scott, otherwise known as Joey Bada$$, released his single “Land of the Free” on January 20, 2017, the day of President Trump’s inauguration. According to Scott, “Land of the Free” was inspired by African-American civil rights leaders such as Marcus Garvey, Dr. Umar Johnson, and Malcolm X (Scott, 2017, Land of the Free). In the song, Scott discusses the racism and prejudice today towards minority groups, especially African-Americans. He also touches on how former President Barack Obama’s presidency was not enough to cause big enough change on the inequality in America. The message in the track, along with the correlating album, “All-Amerikkkan Bada$$”, challenges Americans to speak up and “start a new coalition against corrupt politicians” (Scott, 2017, Land of the Free). Using the cluster analysis method, the song’s word choice is accurately analyzed since clustering the words gives the lyrics a fresh perspective on the political meaning, and it helps evaluate Scott’s motive for wanting change. Scott critiques the political indifference America has towards the ongoing issue of inequality using the key terms free, just,

The Constitution of the United States states in its First Amendment 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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (Funk & Wagnalls 162). This Amendment guarantees each person of free speech. Does this mean that a person can stand in the middle of the street and yell anything he wants? No, society, even though it cherishes freedom of speech, does give this freedom certain restrictions.

The 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court which turned down Section 4 was not an example of second generation barriers as Justice Ruth Ginsburg would suggest; rather, it is an indication of how for America has come from its regrettably dark past to the bright future. (NYtimes) Justice Ginsburg calls the court’s decision a disservice to Dr. King, but that is not the case, it is in fact,