First Amendment Rights Case Study

ISSUE: Does having members who opt out of a union continue to pay agency fees violate the First Amendment to the Constitution?

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

Answer: Discrimination, right before the Revolutionary War, was raised to the highest tide in America’s societies. Many efforts were tried to reduce or alleviate the tense situation but ended up with failure, and this is the origin of two most important concepts in America which are Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Even though Civil Rights and Civil Liberties are both under the Constitution, they are different. Civil Rights are duties of government to ensure the equal treatment for everyone not regarding to their race, gender, age, or religious… while Civil Liberties are people’s freedoms to protect themselves from governmental action like unreasonable searches and seizures.

On September 17, 1787, the United States Constitution was signed by delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, who were directed by George Washington. The 1787 convention was called to draft a new legal system for the United States now that the states were free and colonized. This new Constitution was made to increase federal authority while still protecting the rights of citizens. It established America’s National Government. In 1971, the Bill of Rights were added to Constitution containing the 10 amendments guaranteeing protection for citizens. The first commandment consisting of freedom of speech and religion. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion

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.

The United States of America seems to be protected by a very important historical document called the Constitution. Despite the fact that it was written and signed many years ago, the American people and their leaders still have faith in the Constitution. One of the major statements of the Constitution is the First Amendment, freedom of speech. Although it is difficult to decide what is offensive and what is not, it is clear to see that songs of rape, violence, bigotry, and songs containing four letter words are completely unnecessary for susceptible minds to acknowledge. It is reasonable to say that more people listen to music everyday and for that reason, music tends to be more influential. The American

In this adaptation of “How First Amendment Rights Have Evolved”, the author explains specifically what the first amendment protects and gives examples of different times throughout history that it has been challenged, which has led to an evolution of its power and meaning. The author’s use of thorough reasoning, which is then defended by specific evidence, allows for a strong argument regarding the first amendment and how it has evolved. The author begins the passage by quoting part of the first amendment. This quote serves as evidence to help begin the argument and explain the author’s point of view regarding the purpose and evolution of the first amendment.

This snippet of an article relates to the first amendment. The first amendment is defined as the prohibition of Congress from interfering with freedom of religion, speech, assembly, or petition. This article relates to the first amendment because it is about current issues of leaked government info. This is where the controversy starts. Is it still okay to speak freely even if that means government info is leaked? Or are we just taking free speech too far? Where is that fine

As mentioned before, scholars and legal community debate sections Section 793, 794, and 798. Grievances extend further than violations of the First Amendment rights, but include the nature and substance of the act as well. Lindsey B. Barnes explains, “defendants have challenged the Act as unconstitutionally vague, grossly overbroad, and inconsistently interpreted.” In her piece, “Changing Face of Espionage: Modern Times Call for Amending the Espionage Act”, Barnes proposes, “[the Espionage Act] needs revision and to create a more consistent application of the law.” Both Barnes and Robert D. Epstein call for revisions to the as simply as changing the wording of key phrases. Epstein suggests removing term “national defense” because it

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is responsible for freedom and religion and it allows individuals to to practice whatever religion that they chose (Moran, 2014). Also, due to the Title VII, employers can not refuse to hire a person because he or she is a member of a particular religion.

In 2011, Florida passed a law that stopped doctors from discussing if their patients keep firearms at home. Doctors that talked about firearms with patients could face a fine of $10,000 and possible loss of their medical license. The United States Court of Appeals struck this law down for violation of the First Amendment freedom of speech. Besides violating our first amendment rights, the article pointed out that people that talk to their doctor are three times as likely to store guns safely. Medical Organizations such as the American Medical Association and American Academy of Pediatrics are in favor of the court ruling as they insist that doctors have conversations with patients about firearm safety. Also adding that doctors

A game changer was that the court infringed their First Amendment rights. Which in the First Amendment it states that people have the right to practice their religion. The case was at a whole new stage, and now was viewed at a different point. According to Justia “The Oregon Supreme Court held that respondents' religiously inspired use of peyote fell within the prohibition of the Oregon statute, which "makes no exception for the sacramental use" of the drug. 307 Or. 68, 72-73, 763 (1988)” (Justia. U.S Supreme Court). In which later the court later concluded that both men could not be denied unemployment benefits just because they were practicing their religion. Stated in a Gale Article “Prior to this ruling, in a line of cases going back thirty years, the Court had consistently declared that governments could not, without "compelling reason," infringe on the free exercise of religion. Those rulings upheld the rights of individuals who, for religious reasons, would not work on the Sabbath or, in the most famous of these cases, of the old-order Amish who refused to send their children to state-run schools”(Court, U.S Supreme. Employment Division v.

In 2015, Presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed that he would consider shutting down mosques in the United States. Now being president, he created an executive order mandating the closure of all mosques which is a violation of The First Amendment of the Constitution which states that the “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This report reviews and analyzes individual rights afforded by the constitution and their applicability to the suit for wrongful termination in the case of Korb versus Raytheon. The specific constitutional rights under review are the freedom of speech, freedom of information and challenges associated with employment law. Lawrence Korb, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and current employee of Raytheon, a large equipment manufacturing company for the U.S. military was terminated after making public statements criticizing defense spending and calling for a reduction of Navy’s fleet. Raytheon, a manufacturer of