The Westerly licensing ordinances do not even approach the necessary level of specificity constitutionally mandated, and the plaintiffs have a high likelihood of success. Prior Proceedings: Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from holding a show cause hearing on September 24, 1990, concerning revoking the plaintiff’s entertainment license. The plaintiffs’ moved for a preliminary injunction and met the requirements. Defendants failed allege sufficient harm. Issue: Are the ordinances written by the Westerly Town council constitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
The government accused Schenck of illegally interfering with military equipment, violating the Espionage Act which prohibits all false statements that interfere with the military power. The court ruled against Schenck and created the clear and present danger test: “whether the words are used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger” as Justice Wendell Holmes stated. Overall, the Schenck case rules that freedom of speech could be limited by the government. The true threat doctrine also contributes to if song lyrics should be protected by the first amendment. The Supreme Court ruled in Watts v. United States that “a threat must be distinguished from what is constitutionally protected speech.” Robert Watts made a statement during a rally in the Washington Monument grounds in August 1966: “If they ever make me
Attorneys for Schenck challenged the constitutionality of the Espionage Act on First Amendment grounds. Freedom of Speech, Schenck's attorneys argued, guarantees the liberty of all Americans to voice their opinions about even the most sensitive political issues, as long as their speech does not incite immediate illegal action. Attorneys for the federal government argued that freedom of speech does not include the freedom to undermine the selective service system by casting aspersions upon the draft. In a 9–0 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed Schenck's conviction. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. delivered the opinion.
This right is not absolute: for example, human sacrifices are forbidden. Equal Protection Clause: prohibits government from enacting laws that classify and treat “similarly situated” persons differently. This standard is not absolute and the government can treat persons differently in certain situations. The US Supreme Court has applied the following tests to determine if the Equal Protection Clause has been violated: 1. Strict Scrutiny test: applies to suspect classes (race, national origin and citizenship) and fundamental rights (voting).
In applying the UCMJ to civilians, there are three degrees of inclusiveness that may govern jurisdiction. First, the military might, as a matter of policy, limit its prosecutions to DOD contractors. While in keeping with Congress’s earlier MEJA legislation, such a limitation would run counter to the legislative intent behind the 2007 act. MEJA was not applicable to the civilian contractors in the Abu Ghraib scandal because the DOD had not technically hired them, even though they performed military functions. According to Senator Graham, the recent change in UCMJ jurisdiction was intended to curb contractor abuses such as Abu Ghraib.38 Thus, at the very least, nonDOD contractors actively involved in military operations should now be subject to UCMJ authority.
How would you feel if you were forced to learn a new culture, language, and a new style of a country? Forcing an immigrant to adapt to a new country is morally wrong and should not be allowed. Forcing nonresidents to learn America’s culture and language is wrong because it would contradict the 1st amendment, they would be destroying the immigrant’s culture, and no foreign individual would be unique. Immigrants have the rights as anyone else, and restricting them is cold hearted. “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.” Breaking this amendment will oppose the laws that our founding fathers made which outlined the fundamentals of this outstanding country we live in. Therefore, America has no right to demand nonresidents to learn their culture. Nobody denies that a personality can be created by culture. Culture determines many things about you such as what you eat, how you speak, what your beliefs are, what clothing you where,
Throughout the Constitution, organized operatives designated by the state are referred to as the militia, and the citizens are referred to as the people of the United States. Over the past decade there has been much debate on concealed carry laws regarding personal firearms. Currently there are forty-eight states that allow concealed firearms by their citizens. The Second Amendment of the Constitutional Bill of Rights states “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). Much of the debate comes from the meanings imposed by our founding fathers when the Constitution was composed.
It is saying, “Yes I am guilty, but here is why I did it.” It argues that the defendant’s wrongdoing should be excused because he/she lacked the capacity to be held responsible for the crime. Due Process. This requires that the government does not act unfairly or arbitrarily. The government cannot rely on individual judgment and impulse when making a decision, but must stay within the boundaries of reason and the law. There are two types of due process.
The First Amendment: Freedom of the Press The First Amendment prohibits Congress from preventing citizens from writing their opinions even when speaking ill of the government. Citizens can print anything as long as they think it to be true. If they knowingly print false information, it is considered libel and is unlawful. The First Amendment was proposed on September 25, 1789 and was ratified on December 15, 1791. Freedom of the press was provided in the First Amendment to prohibit Congress from punishing people for publishing their opinions.
No! Armington’s request to drop the civil lawsuit is fruitless, because the 5th Amendment to the Constitution; double jeopardy also does not apply if the later charge is civil rather than criminal in nature, which involves a different legal standard crimes must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas civil wrongs need only be proven by preponderance of evidence (Harper, 2007). Yes, the other rights inside protects witnesses from being forced to incriminate themselves. To "plead the Fifth" is to refuse to answer a question because the response could provide self-incriminating evidence of an illegal act punishable by fines, penalties or forfeiture. The Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses four distinct prohibitions: subsequent prosecution after acquittal, subsequent prosecution after conviction, subsequent prosecution after certain mistrials, and multiple punishments in the same indictment (Harper, 2007).