First Amendment Pros And Cons

Constitution are called the Bill of Rights, they outlined the civil liberties as a citizen of the United States. Civil liberties are the restrictions of powers the government has on the citizens. For example, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, no government established religion, and the right to a jury trial are all examples of liberties the government cannot deny its citizens. According to the Supreme Court case Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, none of the provisions in the Bill of Rights applied to the states, they only applied to the federal government and their restrictions (Bowers 43). However, the authors of Nevada’s 1864 constitution included their own Bill of Rights named the Declaration of Rights.

Many civil liberties can infringe on others and this can sometimes make it hard for courts to rule one way or the other. An example of this could be with advertising. Should advertisers have the same free speech as others even if they are producing false claims? Many liberties have certain tests that they must pass in order to be protected under the Bill of Rights. Some examples of these are the “clear and present

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 is part of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is our rights as citizens living in the United States of America. In this paper I will look at three provisions to the First Amendment, highlighting one case for each provision. Included are one case to discuss freedom of speech, one case to discuss separation of church and state and one case to discuss freedom of association.

Where as, prior to Jackson’s civil liberties jurisprudence in Barnett and incorporation, of the Bill of Rights, each individual state legislature had maintained primary responsibility for defining rights such as freedom of expression. Additionally, after incorporation of the Bill of Rights, the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in cases such as Minersville School District v Gobitis reinforced the legislator’s long

In this book, Radicals in Robes, Cass Sunstein uses a classification system to describe the different principles that the Supreme Court justices use to interpret the Constitution and make decisions. Sunstein is a legal scholar, author and professor who has written many legal publications regarding constitutional law. According to Sunstein, the four approaches are fundamentalist, minimalist, perfectionist, and majoritarian. The factors that separate these judges are their political ideologies and interpretations of the Constitution. Namely, fundamentalism is a judicial theory which states

We want to forget about politics, personal problems, and we look forward to sports, music, art and any other forms of entertainments. Everyone has a different view, opinion, ideas and that’s why we have the men and women in uniform who fought for us and are currently fighting. However, we have the first amendment and other amendment in the constitution which applies when unfairness cause a disruption of a population. In addition, the amendment is a book of rules, and for me as long as we are following the rules and not physical and emotional harming others, we deserve to protest in a safe way. We can interpret opinions in different forms, however, if we stop and reflect on that particular message we can find different interpretation and meaningful hidden messages.

In the 1980 law review, “The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding”, Paul Brest challenges traditional approaches to Constitutional interpretation by proposing non-originalist adjudication, a method that “accords the text and original history of the Constitution presumptive weight, but does not treat them as authoritative or binding” (p. 70). This method directly conflicts with originalism, the method of interpretation supported by Antonin Scalia, but generally agrees with semantic intentionalism, the approach proposed by Ronald Dworkin. The difference in the outcome of nonoriginalist interpretation is especially seen in cases involving

Congress shall make no law representing an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and 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.

In Saying What the Law Is Charles Fried asserts the importance of “constitutional doctrine” in the judicial process of the U.S. Supreme Court. Fried puts forth that doctrine via the interpretation of past Supreme Court cases, represents the lion’s share of constitutional law, and provides a buttress for the configurations of our government while concomitantly defining and protecting our individual rights. Fried claims early in the book that it is not a work of history or philosophy but an “understanding” of the topic of constitutional law. He provides an analysis on the practices or ways of thought that influence judicial opinions. Fried is a strong believer in

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

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

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.