The Impact of Modern Day Voter Suppression Thomas Jefferson once stated “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Democracy does not exist if certain people are allowed to take away the rights and freedoms of others. People should be allowed to critically analyze and interrupt their decisions without outside interferences. Democracy is “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections” (Webster). The American Government was built upon this belief that people are allowed to choose their representativeness in an electoral system. These beliefs have been the ideas and founding principles in the past, but in our modern society, voter suppression has again and again crippled the rights of the people.
According to IRS, 501(c)(4) group is non-profit organization that operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare.xvii This group isn’t subject to the same disclosure requirements as Super PACs do. Individual donors and corporations can hide their identity and the amount they donate to a the 501(c)(4). The reason that Super PACs don’t invite corruptions is because of its transparency. Compelling public disclosure allows citizenry to closely examine the money being donated and spent on campaigns. Once the donation is under the table, democracy To borrow from Justice Scalia in Doe v. Reed (2010)xviii, “Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed ”.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution According to Tom Head’s Civil Liberties, and the Fifth Amendment, a person cannot be held for questions in a capital crime unless an indictment has been issued by a Grand Jury. The military; however, have their own set of rules for their soldiers. Another right is that no one should be tried for the same crime twice, which is called double jeopardy. Also a defendant cannot be forced to testify against his or himself because he or she may incriminate him or herself. The Fifth Amendment also states the no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without Due Process of Law.
Citizens United is a court case held in January of 2010. It was Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The case was about if large corporations can spend their money on individuals in an election. The government finally came to a conclusion that the corporations can freedom of speech so they can spend their money on ads that discriminate or give props an individual candidate. (McElroy, 2010) The corporations have as much freedom of speech as an individual making signs and putting them up around town.
If these companies weren’t being government run in some form or another, there would be no immunity to these laws. Nobody else has immunity, thus there has to be a correlation just like the one with the ministries and government in 1984. To sum of the findings of this article, the facts are that these service providers are essentially getting away with breaking the law; however it’s not at the government’s expense, like in the book it’s at the people’s expense, ours. This concept of constant surveillance is the epitome of what this country doesn’t stand for. It’s the “land of the free” not the land of the
They went further and overruled the Austin case which had said that the BCRA ban did NOT violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and also overruled in part McConnell which had extended the BCRA’s expenditure prohibitions. However, they upheld the BCRA’s requirement of disclosing who was funding a political opinion piece such as the Hillary: The Movie documentary. The Court’s opinion was, essentially, that a corporation is entitled to the same free speech rights in the First Amendment as an individual, the media and even political parties. In his concurring opinion, Justice Scalia writes about the original meaning of the First Amendment: “The Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of
This means if someone is charged with a crime they cannot punish them cruelly, like using electric chairs or gas chambers (The Constitution of the United States). The last part of the Eight Amendment is the Excessive Fines clause, which is that judges
2091) Though, there could be some delegation within that matter to argue that the President does not have the full powers of war because they are not “implicitly delegated” by the Congress to the President. In response to this: this is where the AUMF gives the President the right to use the powers of war implied to him by Congress, through which he is allowed to do within the law of war. Behind this allegation of the Presidentʼs war powers based on Congress, the Judiciary and Political branches support this theory that in need of protecting the country from foreign lands, the President has the right to act with military force without consulting Congress at force, as long as it is within the laws of war. Bradley and Goldsmith go on to say “...in the absence of express congressional restriction, the only limitations on presidential power during wartime were the laws of war.” (Bradley & Goldsmith, pg. 2092) In the court case of Brown v. United States, Brown argued that the laws of war were broken when the President tried to take over some land that was under the ownership of the enemy forces after the War of 1812.
U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES Barron v. Baltimore: (1833) Barron claimed that the usage of eminent domain was a direct violation of the 5th Amendment of the Constitution The Supreme Court decided that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings of private property for public use require just compensation, are restrictions on the federal government alone. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of Baltimore, stating that the precepts stated within the 5th Amendment to the Constitution were limited to adherence by the Federal government; due to the fact that the 5th Amendment does not express the requirement of individual State and City governments to adhere to these tenets. As a result of their
Only very limited types of matters can be brought in federal court. Generally, federal courts can hear civil cases only if there is an issue involving the meaning of a federal law (such as the Constitution or a law passed by Congress), or if the parties are from different states and more than $75,000 is at stake, or if the United States is a party to the lawsuit. For example, if a company violates a federal environmental law, a suit can