Investigation: A person can have reasonable privacy even in a public place. In this case, the person utilizing the phone booth would expect reasonable privacy because they would not think that their conversation would be recorded regardless of the conversations that took place. Under the Fourth Amendment, the taping of the phone conversations constitutes the search even though the search was achieved without a warrant. Conclusion: The evidence such as the tapes were inadmissible under the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the conviction was overturned.
This has effected schools today because this standard is still put into affect when it comes down to the first amendment and expressing freedom of speech. Students are allowed to express themselves upon a certain extent. Example with religion you cannot speak of it in school saying that one religion is better than the
What Americans do have a right to is their opinion and the means by which to express it, no matter if the opinion is favorable or not. There are some advocates who champion for restrictions on unfavorable speech, like violent or racist remarks. And though the intentions behind such beliefs are made in good faith, it is unrealistic to believe the mission of filtering out racist speech could be completed without catching in the same net all kinds of other speech that is considered "OK" (Lawrence III 514). I firmly believe that a government that tells its citizens what is appropriate to say will soon be dictating what they may think also, and by that, it is unlawful for the government to regulate racist or violent speech. By doing so the government would intrude on students' creativity and learning process, would set illusive restraints on racist behavior, and undermine the Constitution at whole.
Despite these 'similarities' between the two documents, the statements reach separate conclusions as to how the United States should continue to protect liberty. While both statements appear to uphold the Declaration, it is the Sharon Statement, and not the Port Huron Statement, which supports the Founder's intentions for the United States' government. The Port Huron Statement deviates from the original documents and proposes an expansion of the government in order to protect individual freedom; it suggest publicizing private affairs to protect liberty, a paradox it creates even as it names paradoxes in the United States. The Sharon Statement upholds the integrity of the Declaration and the Founders by adhering to the Constitution and not stepping past the bounds of government it lays out in its structure. The Port Huron Statement, if applied to United States policies, would destroy the liberty carefully established by the Founders, laid out in the Constitution, and defended throughout American history.
Its author had no intention of violating the First Amendment. When the Pledge is recited in public places, no one person of any age is forced to violate their constitutionally guaranteed right to the freedom from and of religion. The Pledge of Allegiance should remain intact in the public arena -- for the fact that it helps citizens of the United States to remember essential principles for which this country was founded, such as “liberty and justice for all.” In more recent years, the Pledge controversy presented itself when Michael Newdow filed a lawsuit against Elk Grove Unified School District. The reasoning behind the lawsuit rested on his disagreement with a rule that make the recitation of the Pledge mandatory in a California public school district. In Elk Grove v. Newdow (1), Newdow’s Establishment Clause claim demanded that President Bill Clinton change the Pledge of Allegiance and omit the phrase “one Nation under God.” The Founding Fathers created the First Amendment which includes the Establishment Clause to “impose a number of restrictions on the federal government with respect to the civil liberties of the people, including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition” (2).
Amendment’s 1-7 Research Paper The Constitution and all of it's amendments were created as a rule book or a guideline on what the government of the United States can do and what it can not do. It protects American citizens from abusive government actions against them that could violate basic rights like religion and freedom of speech. The first seven amendments are very important and give us many rights. The 1st Amendment to the US Constitution was passed by Congress on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights and this amendment guarantees freedom of religion and the press. The amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
An example is when the Miranda Doctrine is not observed upon arresting, the right of self-incrimination may be invoked so as for the evidences against the defense be inadmissible. In order for the Miranda Doctrine to be validly executed, such must be stated in the presence of the counsel for the defense. Such doctrine may be waived, but must be made with utmost knowledge of its consequences (Israel et al, 1993). Although both Fifth and Sixth Amendments embody significant rights for the citizens, it still has differences, one of which is that pertaining to the inquiries pertaining to the case is not allowed in the Fifth Amendment. The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him.
In the United States of America, the people are protected by a group of laws called the Constitution. The very first of these laws is “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.” (US Constitution) This decree states that for no reason may the government restrict the right of free speech to the people. Free speech is sort of like your opinion on matters.
The restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. Which principle conception? Formal or substantive. Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or derived from, the rule of law.
What I believe that the definition of independence is the absolute freedom to do what you want, and to not be held back by any rules or laws of government or man, but by the rules and laws of nature and your own conscious. My view of independence may greatly differ form your beliefs on the definition but in this paper I will try to show exactly what my perspective on the definition of independence is by my experiences, my beliefs, my thoughts, and research on the subject at hand. Firstly, I believe that independence can not be the definition of what your government says is independent. If you go by what the government says is independent than why not go by Chinas definition of independence, or by the communists party’s definition of independence. If you are being governed than you are not truly independent.