David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
Freedom of the press was provided in the First Amendment to prohibit Congress from punishing people for publishing their opinions. Before this amendment, people were sent to jail for printing information that might hurt the government’s reputation. That is what happened to John Peter Zenger in 1735. John
With the Chancellor’s totalitarian rule, the people had no rights and no way to vote him or any other officials out of office. Another document that protects the United State’s liberty and equality is the Bill of Rights, amendments to the Constitution. The very first amendment of the Constitution states that there will be no law restricting the freedom of speech, freedom of press,
Although Fahrenheit 451 contemplates how government censorship, control, and fear have the power to dictate life, it is offset by the atmosphere of perseverance placed around the novel, as well as Bradbury’s complete understanding of his First Amendment rights. Bradbury ties personal freedom to the right of an individual having the freedom of expression when he utilizes the issue of censorship in Fahrenheit 451. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “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 redress of grievances.” The common reading of the First Amendment is that commitment to free speech is not the acceptance of only non-controversial expressions that enjoy general approval. To accept a commitment to the First Amendment means, in the words of Justice Holmes, “freedom for what we hate.” As quoted in Students’ Right to Read (NCTE, 1982), “Censorship leaves students with an inadequate and distorted picture of the ideals, values, and problems of their culture. Writers may often be the spokesmen of their culture, or they may stand to the side, attempting to describe and evaluate that culture.
One reason alone is why, the President has so ordered it. The CIA is acting under orders, as is the Military to do what ever it takes to find out information. The fifteenth and sixteenth paragraphs of an article named Military Lawyers Fought Policy on Interrogations by Josh White of the Washington Post Newspaper, puts the blame exactly where it belongs on who is responsible for this. “In 2002, the State Department's legal adviser expressed concerns that the Bush administration had ignored the Geneva Conventions in deciding how to treat captured members of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Because such captives have been categorized as "enemy combatants" and not prisoners of war, the administration has said the conditions of their detention are not governed by the Geneva Conventions, though they would be treated humanely.
1) Debs insist, “If the Espionage law finally stands, then the constitution of the United States is dead. If that law is not the negation of every fundamental principle established by the constitution, then certainly I am unable to read or to understand the English language” (VOF, 120). When another law usually conflicts with the Constitution that law is void. But in this case when the Espionage Act was in conflict it was not void. So Debs is saying that now basically the constitution is dead because the Espionage Act is being enforced over the Constitution.
He was against the option of war with Iran or any use of force by the British and let them know that. The American attitude toward a coup dramatically changed after the 1952 election where, “within days of the election, a senior agent of the Secret Intelligence Service, Christopher Montaugue Woodhouse, came to Washington for meetings with top CIA and State Department officials. Woodhouse shrewdly decided not to make the traditional British argument, which was that Mossadegh must go because he had nationalized British property. That argument did not arouse much passion in Washington. Woodhouse knew what would.” In All The Shahs Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror by Stephen Kinzer (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., , Hoboken, N.J., 2003, 2006) Woodhouse later wrote of the issue as “not wishing to be accused of trying to use the Americans to pull British chestnuts out of the fire I decided to emphasize the Communist threat to Iran rather than the need to recover control of the oil
Enemies Within Enemies Within The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America Robert Alan Goldberg YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS NEW HAVEN & LONDON Copyright © 2001 by Yale University. All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, including illustrations, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the publishers. Designed by James Johnson and set in Swift Roman, Gill Sans, and Crackhouse types by Achorn Graphic Services, Inc.
THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 3 The King Can Do No Wrong: Sovereign Immunity The definition of “Sovereign Immunity” is: legal protection that prevents a sovereign state or person from being sued without consent (West’s encyclopedia of American Law, 2008). Sovereign immunity is a judicial doctrine that prevents the government or its political subdivisions, departments, and agencies from being sued without permission. The doctrine stems from the ancient English principle that the monarch can do no wrong (2008). Under the feudal system no lord could be called to answer before a vassal, and given that the king was the highest lord in the realm, it was not possible to order him to answer to any tribunal. Of course, we have no king and the government is not the sovereign.
The Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution are known. The Bill of Rights prohibits Congress from making any law forcing a particular Religion or prohibiting the free exercise of any of one’s choice, aka freedom of religion, speech, assembly and petition. The Bill of Rights also gives all Americans the right to keep and bear arms, (but not in an airport). That we can reasonably expect a soldier will not take up residence in our homes without permission. We can expect to be secure in our own homes with freedom of unreasonable search and seizures, and from what I understand that includes personal vehicles as well.