The fourth amendment prohibits, "unreasonable searches and seizures", and protects citizens' privacy within reasonable measures. Now, how does this tie into modern technology, and should the use of this information be considered a violation of people's constitutional right to privacy? Police should not be able to obtain information stored by personal devices or their carriers, as the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution guarantees privacy to the United States citizens. In that case that the authorities were to use information from a person's personal device without a proper warrant, they would be in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment was established in order to protect the privacies of the United States
The Supreme court decision included, “ Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order.” Ultimately, this case highlighted the power of the Supreme Court to deviate from the free exercise clause in cases of religious acts that are socially unacceptable or justifies multiple marriages ( Reynolds vs. United States). Lastly, political institutions that limit the impact of Supreme Court decisions include the fact that Constitutional Amendments can be passed at any time to overturn the decision of the Supreme court. This specific power is safeguarded under the Supremacy clause, which designates the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land,” and a doctrine that can be utilized in times of conflict in the law. Lastly, appellate jurisdiction limits Supreme Court decisions, as the Supreme court has the jurisdiction to hear cases from lower courts and change the outcomes of those decisions if
Reasoning: The section of the Judiciary Act of 1792 (passed by Congress) relied on by Marbury which granted the Supreme Court the right to issue writs of mandamus to government officials was unconstitutional and therefore is void and of no effect. The Constitution only gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases “affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls and those in which a state shall be a party. In all other cases, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” It is the duty of the Court to
Is Senator Gravel’s alleged arrangement with Beacon Press protected by the Speech and Debate Clause? No Opinion of the Court (White) The Speech and Debate clause of the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect members of Congress from any prosecution that disrupts the legislative process. Therefore, Gravel is justified in his claim that he is protected under it. The aides of a member of Congress are perceived by the Court to be “alter egos” of the member itself. Thus, the Court holds that, by the indistinguishable nature of the characteristics and duties of the members and their aides, the protection provided by the Speech and Debate Clause should be extended to the aides.
The 14th Amendment 1868 due process clause this dictates that neither state or Government could get in the way of personal rights this is an extremely effective away to protect the civil liberties of its citizens . This is an extremely effective way at protecting the civil liberties as it is enforced by the Supreme Court there are many cases such as the New York Times vs. United States the Nixon administration sought an injunction against both the New York times and the Washington Post, in order to stop the publication if content
First of all, if the NSA were to pursue major invasions of privacy to American’s, they would be obstructing rights set forth by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits non-reasonable search and seizure. If there is no probable cause for the government to search for evidence on an individual, then their legal rights should not be violated. I personally have nothing to hide, but being spied on would make me questions the true ethics of this country. On the other hand, I think that our government has the right to do everything in it’s power to ensure our safety, including spying on those in countries who have threatened our own.
The second amendment says “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.” (Bill of Rights). But how could we interpret this amendment? Does this mean that we have the right to have only one gun, or we have the right to have as many guns as we want? Every right has its limitations and this right is not the exception. The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights).
Despite this, Zenger’s defense found every opportunity to present that truth should be a justifiable defense in a libel case. The defense also argued that free speech was fundamental to a good, successful government. John Peter Zenger was found not guilty of the charges. There is much controversy regarding the importance of the Zenger Affair’s impact on the history of New York. Some say that it was nothing more than an inconclusive political confrontation.
Reflections on the First Amendment HIS301 United States Constitution Reflections on the First Amendment The First Amendment; what is the significance of the three provisions the rights and responsibilities it gives the American people. 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 gives cause for many court cases with the dealing of separation of religion and state freedom of speech you would think that one case would be more than enough to cover it but form looking at the cases it maybe rather
Although it was written in 1789(“The story of the Bill of Rights”), The First Amendment has stood the test of time like a champ. This amendment gives us freedoms that we consider as basic unlike other countries, who are not as fortunate to have them. The US Constitution, Amendment 1 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.” Eventually this amendment caused a lot of court cases to come about. From people protesting to others burning draft cards The Frist Amendment has been used as an excuse for almost anything although not everyone is successful with pleading it. One important case is