As explained above, the right to privacy is a universally recognized right. NSA surveillance, collection of personal details may be going against the conventional grain of fundamental human rights and freedoms. The recent court rulings on the issue have not quite settled on a single premise. Two rulings of two courts in America have actually arrived at two different decisions citing two distinct reasoning. In Clayman vs Obama, Judge Richard echoed that surveillance and collection of telephony data by NSA without the knowledge of the general public was against the spirit of the constitution of America.
Took many principles of progressivism and translated them into foreign policy. 11] Espionage and Sedition Acts - basically gave the US a right to convict anybody of treason if they were suspected of getting secret information and giving it to the enemy. Mainly went against the socialist parties. 12] Schenck v. United States - a United States Supreme Court decision concerning the question of whether the defendant possessed a First Amendment right to free speech against the draft during World War I. The court said that his criminal conviction was constitutional because the first amendment didn't protect speech encouraging insubordination.
Actions such as these led to the Exclusionary Rules creation by the United States Supreme Court. Rationale and Purpose The Exclusionary Rule was designed to exclude evidence that was obtained in violation of defendants Fourth Amendment rights (The Free Dictionary, 2012). The primary purpose of this rule was to deter the police from misconduct that violate defendants’ rights (The Free Dictionary, 2012). If the police conduct a search that is unreasonable then any evidence that is obtained in the search will be excluded from any criminal trial (The Free Dictionary, 2012). The rationale for the rule comes from the constitutional concept of limited governmental authority (Hall, 1992).
Con 1st Construction Introduction_______________________________________________________ Resolved: On balance, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission harms the election process. My partner and I strongly negate this resolution. Observations Observation1: Definitions: On balance= Means All things considered Harms the Election Process = Is anything that lowers participation, obfuscates the truth, gives certain people an advantage, or leads to corrupting results that clearly makes any given election worse Citizens United v. FEC= Was a United States Supreme Court case that held that the first amendment
Hate Crimes Hate Crime, just the word hate seems to bring a sort of uneasiness too many people, add in the word crime and all sorts of thoughts and emotions start running through my head. According to the “Merriam –Webster” (2014) “dictionary the definition of hate crime states; any of various crimes (as assault or defacement of property) when motivated by hostility to the victim as a member of a group (as one based on color, creed, gender, or sexual orientation)”. Any and everyone can be a victim of a hate crime. There are many different types of hate crimes that are based on a person’s race, religion, disability, gender, and a person’s sexual orientation. The word hate crime didn’t come to light until the 1980’s but it is a known factor
Federal v. State Government To this day the relationship between federal and state governments in respect to the constitution still effect the everyday person. Many people feel that it is unfair that a state government can null and void a federal law. But on the reverse side, people feel that it is unfair that the federal government can make a law legal without knowing the feelings and ideas of the people. Throughout history, there have been events that test the limits of federal and state governments. A recent event that proves federal and state governments are separate is the topic of gay marriage.
Hate crime can be defined differently based on the crime, the group or individual that is the victim, and the group or the individual doing the crime. A local, state, or federal law defines a hate crime as harm from a threat, a physical action, or harassment towards someone’s differences. The differences can include race, sexual orientation, religion or even someone’s disability (US Legal, 2012). Many resources can be found that talk about hate crime and the people that the hate crimes are against. Race is one of the
The Patriot Act alone makes it allowable to search and seize US citizen’s papers and effects without probable cause, “to assist in a terror investigation” (CCAPA, 2003). Using this, the NSA and other government agencies have been collecting phone records, personal records, internet usage habits, and other meta data of innocents without their knowledge (Kopczynski, 2013). The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit in court challenging the interpretation of the Patriot Act as a violation of Americans’ constitutional rights. The Patriot Act expanded the government's power to use eavesdropping, surveillance, access to financial and computer records and other tools to track terrorist suspects (Lichtblau, 2003). This has opened the door for the NDAA which seemingly gave the government oversight of your everyday lives.
You’ve to find out who has the access to those guns, especially when people are irrational, deranged and so forth. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stated “the worst thing we can do is create a false sense of security. Graham also states that he’s open o establishing a commission to help members understand what they could logically do to prevent mass murder. Sen. Marco Rubio (R. Fla.) said there were “specific ideas” that could be debated, but he is committed to protect what is a constitutional right. Analysis Republicans don’t agree with the assault weapon bans.
Backers say illegal immigration has created public safety and economic crises. At issue is whether states have any authority to step in to enforce immigration matters or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. In dry legal terms, this constitutional question is known as pre-emption. Other states watch for outcome Paul Clement, lawyer for Arizona, told the high court the federal government has long failed to control the problem, and that states have discretion to assist in enforcing immigration laws. But the Obama administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, strongly countered that assertion, saying immigration matters are under the federal government's exclusive authority and state "interference" would only make matters worse.