Pros And Cons Of Limiting The Rights Of Citizens

“Sovereign citizens are anti-government extremists who believe that even though they physically reside in the United States, they are separate or “sovereign” from the United States. As a result, they feel they do not have to answer to any government authority, including courts, taxing entities, motor vehicle departments or law enforcement” (Dempsey & Forst, 2016, p.534). Sovereign Citizens are domestic terrorists who have committed crimes of violence against law enforcement officers.

One of the most misinterpreted aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the freedom of expression. Group organizations have misused this much too often. In the past, many extremist groups have misused this right to protect themselves. A great example is the Westboro Baptist Church. This church is one of the many groups across North America that uses the Charter to protect themselves. The Charter protects them even though their actions and messages are harmful and not beneficial to society. If the Charter was to recognize these groups as dangerous, they wouldn’t have the chance to misuse these freedoms. Also, the fact that if a Canadian citizen were to use the excuse of the freedom of expression to defend their actions, they wouldn’t

Citizens United is an organization that wants to restore citizen control of the United States government. They want to restore the America back to a free nation that has a limited government. The way that they achieve this is to produces television commercials, web advertisements, and documentary films. In 2009, Citizen United sued the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United stated that it was illegal to limit a corporation from spending its treasury money to support or attack candidates in presidential elections. This led to outside groups such as the Super PACs to contribute unlimited amounts of money. Super PACs are an independent political action committee. They could raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, and other individuals.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides 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." The Fourth Amendment does not guarantee protection from all searches and seizures, but only those done by the government and deemed unreasonable under the law. To claim violation of Fourth Amendment as the basis for suppressing a relevant evidence, the court had long required that the claimant must prove that he/she was the victim of an invasion of privacy to have a valid standing to claim protection under the Fourth Amendment.

The United States has been well known and notable for its freedom and liberty that it upholds. Matter of fact, some people have even left their native countries to have a better successful life in the U.S. Unfortunately,their own country didn’t offer the opportunities that the U.S offered. Although freedom has been enjoyed for some years now, what if those freedoms were at risk? The Bill of Rights is unstable and could be modified at any moment in time. The 4th amendment is constantly being violated by law enforcement, allowing the amendment more than likely to be changed.

There are moments when civil liberties should be curtailed in democratic countries like the US and Canada, in order to maintain national security. While this is true, there are also moments that an individual’s civil liberty should be maintained whereas it is not. Consequently, governments should make clear boundaries as to which occasions civil liberties should be restricted. For instance, both the Patriotic Act and the Anti-terrorist Act allowed rover wiretapping which are needed to deal with terrorists who have a sophisticated knowledge of how technology works.

Jurisprudence explores what would be the simplest manifestation of law so as to create a civil society society where both individual liberty and normative goals are practiced. Should the the aim of law be primarily centered on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals geared toward the benefit of of civil society? The laws in any society ought to not be centered on normative goals it ought to conjointly defend individual liberty.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects every individual’s personal privacy, and every person’s right to be free from unwarranted government intrusion in their homes, businesses and property, regardless of whether it is through police stops and checks or the search of their homes. In the context of Mr. Smith’s Arrest, he was arrested without a warrant of arrest and there was a search, which was conducted by a private citizen on his premises without a search warrant, the courts upheld his arrest and subsequent conviction thus implying that all due process was followed before reaching at the verdict. The constitutionality of search and arrest without a warrant was challenged in the case of PayTon v. Newyork, (1980) (Payton v. New York | Casebriefs, 2017).

In establishing a § 1983 claim the claimant must first determine which constitutional right was violated. In this case, Dave Douglas, Taylor Reveley, and George Walkers claims fall under the Fourth Amendment because they have not been arrested or detained for pretrial. Each plaintiff will argue that the police officers seized them unreasonably and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. First, the claimant must establish that the government actor was acting under “the color of law.” In this case, the police officers were acting in their official capacity as on-duty cops. HotCop, as a possible contractor with law enforcement may also operate under the color of law and therefore be subject to suit as well. This will be addressed further later in the memo. Each potential plaintiff and the possible defenses to their claims is addressed below.

One of the many freedoms we enjoy, as Americans is the right that protects us from unreasonable search and seizures; as well as the necessity for a search warrant when law enforcement wishes to search someone’s property. This right is known as the Fourth Amendment and it contains two clauses: the first one is the reasonableness clause, which states that we are protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. The second part is the warrant clause, which states that a warrant must be issued upon the finding of probable cause. It must then be supported by an affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and what us intending to be found.

As we grow up, there are certain rights that we develop as people as we age. For example, at the age of 18 we are given the right to vote in elections as well as purchase tobacco if we so choose too. But there are certain rights, given to all citizens of the United States, independent of age, that also can not be taken away. As an example, the 1st amendment allows for the freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly, and petition. The 14th amendment gives citizenship to all people who are born or naturalized in the United States. In today’s day in age however, one amendment has become quite controversial, the 4th amendment. This amendment protects people against unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure and that warrants may not be issued unless there is probable cause. What becomes controversial now is whether or not this amendment includes the protection of what a person says or does on the internet as well as what a person says to another well calling another person. The 4th amendment reads, “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.” In its current phrasing it is vague enough to push the boundaries of what is protected and what isn’t. For this reason it needs to be updated to fit

The Fourth Amendment is the right for people to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. The amendment also states that warrants will not be issued unless they are issued under probable cause. This amendment is the biggest factor in the case of Omaha Herald v. Police, however, this case cannot as easily be defined by the Fourth Amendment can be and there are arguments and cases which can be made for both sides.

The Second Amendment states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Even though this amendment has been around for hundreds of years, people still argue over what it means and if it should still apply today. The two extreme sides of this argument as stated in Henry Winkler’s book are the Gun Nuts and the Gun Grabbers (Winkler 15,45). One side argues that there should not be any guns at all, and the other side argues that everyone should have a gun. This discussion has been around for decades, and I believe that it is not going away anytime soon. There are a few arguments as to why I believe that the government shall not and cannot remove guns from American citizens. First, I believe that I have a constitutional right to own firearms due to the second amendment. Secondly, everyone should not be punished for the actions of a few lawless individuals. Thirdly, the removal of firearms would be costly, hard to enforce and unlikely to succeed, and finally, gun control laws are racially motivated. Through the use of what I believe combined with historical examples, my goal is to persuade a “Gun Grabber” on why the government cannot take away my guns.

Since the creation of the constitution in 1789, people have found ways to disobey the laws written by our founding fathers. Most crimes have punishments that give fair consequences to the misconduct of the person, but some cases prove otherwise. The Bill of Rights were created to override all other law and provide a basis for moral wrongs and rights. Each amendment was written with a purpose to shape our country and give individual citizens the rights they believed were naturally theirs. One case, taken into the hands of the Supreme Court during World War I, caused an uproar of disagreement, to whether the case was decided unfairly. To this day, the case still remains arguable to whether this individual deserved the punishment that was given.

I negate the resolution, "Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individual rights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of