The problem with the current system is that voting is in fact an inferred right – Although accepted as a right by the general populace, the failure of the U.S. Constitution to directly enumerate it leaves it room for interpretation and manipulation. Thus, the U.S. government may decide who may and may not vote, so long as they do not violate certain guidelines such as the 15th and 19th amendments. The Constitution only prohibits the Government from banning its citizens from voting due to color, race, religion, sex, and the like. Another thing that many Americans don’t realize is that in the 2000 court case Bush v. Gore, the Supreme court ruled “The individual Citizen has no federal Constitutional right to vote,” Because of this, State Governments may infer through the 10th amendment that they too may regulate voter’s rights within their own jurisdictions as it states “The powers not delegated to the United S... ... middle of paper ... ...igher than it was before the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court has refused to apply strict scrutiny to felon disenfranchisement except where discriminatory intent can be proven”.
So, for example, the US has ruled that a state may not forbid interracial marriages, or forbid inmates from marrying (except under compelling reasons). I am not aware of any argument claiming that the US Constitution currently forbids same-sex marriage, although there are arguments that it requires it either as matter of a fundamental right to marry, or as a matter of equal protection. It has been noted that the federal government has banned polygamy, but I don't believe this is quite true. The US Congress is ultimately responsible for the laws in DC and the territories. It thus banned polygamy in Utah when Utah was a territory.
The Right to Privacy by Robert Bork. Robert Bork's The Right of Privacy examined the landmark case Griswald v. Conneticut. Bork's "originalist" view proclaimed that Justice Douglas erroneously interpreted the right of privacy from the Constitution. The originalist view is that judges must strictly adhere to the language of the Constitution, thus people do not have a general right to privacy because it was never actually written into the Constitution. This view severely restricts judges in dealing with new issues that our forefathers could not have possibly envisioned.
Why is it so important to some people not to offend? It seems the people easily offended are the ones deciding what is acceptable f... ... middle of paper ... ...ndependent of any government intervention. Over the years our right to have freedom of speech has proven to be frivolous and impertinent to the two dominant institutions of the modern world. Furthermore the nations revered Bill of Rights has been kicked to the curb by the government and the Church for many years. Neither the government nor the Church has the right to interdict material that can be injurious to their faith or morals.
To contrast, Kushma’s use of logos isn 't as effective as Shipp’s because it ties in with his own opinion and stated that freedom of speech isn 't allowed. With Kushma’s argument by restating the Declaration of Independence and how America should be respected by every individual is just an opinion. In Shipp’s article, “The government cannot control our thoughts or speech or prohibits us from protesting. If the government cannot take away these rights, then certainly we cannot do that to each other”(Shipp, 2). Shipp argues that society is given the opportunity to free speech.
Although freedom of speech and expression may sometimes be offensive to other people, it is still everyone’s right to express his/her opinion under the American constitution which 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 the press”. Although this amendment gave people the right express thier opinions, it still rests in one’s own hands as how far they will go to exercise that right of freedom of speech. According to Roger Rosenblatt “since free is the way people's minds were made to be”, freedom of speech is important to speak one's mind in a way that expresses his/her opinion even if this opinion does not seem to convince others. In my opinion, without freedom of speech, the United States would have failed to be such a powerful country as it is today. .
Never did the Constitution define or give examples of what a well regulated militia is or types of weapons deemed reasonable for protection. It then should be left to Congress, or more importantly the Supreme Court to interrupt this vague language. I think the government could reasonable regulate guns, without compromising the second amendment, but like Clede I believe Congress should concentrate more on who is using the guns and not guns themselves. Patrick Henry felt that we should preserve our public liberties, and if need be by force. As Patrick Henry stated, "The great objective is that every man be armed."
The new constitution did not include anything about how to stop the government from infringing on the rights it did not mention. This meant that the government could violate the freedom of speech, re... ... middle of paper ... ...he part of the constitution which says that the national government may keep an army in peacetime is a flaw the Anti-Federalists saw in the constitution which could be used in a constitutional debate today. It could also be said the national government possesses too much power the state governments. The national government has authority over state governments and its laws are higher laws than state laws. The Anti-Federalists proposed great arguments for why the constitution should be changed and gained much support for opposing the Federalists, but the Federalists won the arguments in the end.
Introduction American’s view of government today is predominantly a negative one. This is an America immersed in distrust of government. It does not matter if a person leans to the left or right, America believes in the culture and spirit of individual choice. Americans believes it has the right to listen to their individual voice within and believe it is wrong to be forced to obey to the external ideals from government, which is why Americans have difficulties getting behind government and the public administrators who oversee governing agencies, a difficult task I may add. Governing in an era of distrust is more difficult than governing in an age of trust, and because of that, government now lacks the legitimacy to impose its will on Americans, so politicians and public administrators face extraordinary pressure to generate situations in which all Americans can feel like they are getting something of value.
The current opinion of courts is that the First Amendment bans religion in our government to protect the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from the government. The first amendment does not say church and state should be separate since our founders understood if church and state were completely separate, our government would fall apart. 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.” The first amendment does not state that there was such a separation, but that there was a “wall of separation” which the government could not break. The misunderstood statement from Thomas Jefferson has resulted in Judges who ignore the Constitution and the original intent of the First Amendment of our Founding Fathers (Bonta). The first amendment did not state that there was such a separation, but that there was a “wall of separation” which the government could not break.