NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... chooses, and can refuse to approve of Executive appointees to the Supreme Court. At the root of all this structure dictating how the power triangle works, is the fact that no branches of government have power without the approval of the people. If the people are unhappy with the performance of any branch of the government, they are (usually! What a bad voting decade for the Left! ) quick to rectify the situation at the next opportunity they have to vote.
While they cannot effect the Supreme Court directly, they elect members of Congress who hold the rights impeach justices of the Court, and they elect the President who appoints new members of the Court. Power is not only shared by the 3 branches of the federal government, it is also shared between the states, and the federal government. Power is granted to the states that is not granted the federal government, with regards to such matters as law enforcement, marriage, and education. On the opposite side of the same coin, the federal government can do things that no state can do, such as mint new money, control interstate trade, or declare war on an outside force. States and the federal government share power with such issues as taxation, trying criminals, and building new roads. It's a wonder that anything gets done at all in our federal government and accompanying bureaucracy with all of its divisions of power!
However, longevity is definitely an indicator of something that works, and our form of democracy based on the US Constitution has been around for over 225 years. Part II Bill of Rights, Amendment I. 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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 1. Immediately prior to the Declaration of Independence, there had been much civil strife between the colonial public and the authority of the British Crown.
Unaware that their consideration for colonists' rights were expected at all, George III and Parliament had no qualms about stripping away various freedoms while trying to suppress the colonial rebellion. Obviously censorship accompanied this event as a free press corps would cry out against the occupation. The occupying British Army wanted to avoid large groups of citizens gathering, for reasons of security. Speaking out against the empire in the manner that many colonialists did incited the rest of the population to rebel as well, so that couldn't be tolerated either. The right to assemble, the press, and of general speech, not to mention petition government, are all expressive rights that were not considered by the British Crown, and James Madison made it clear that everyone's voice would be heard in the new republic with the 1 st Amendment. Religion was initially only a freedom included on the charter for Maryland, but was included in the 1 st Amendment.
An interesting note: while many groups such as the Puritans emigrated to the New World for the freedom to practice their religion, they made it a sin and against their laws to have different religious beliefs in their colony. 2. In 1943 during the height of World War II, the Supreme Court ruled in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett that students could not be forced to recite the pledge of allegiance. While I can understand the viewpoint of the Board of Education, especially during a war where the gravity of this sort of thing is magnified, I can understand some parents and students not being happy with being forced to go through some morning routine to show their allegiance as well. In what it truly means and represents, freedom of speech as outlined and implied in the Constitution also includes the freedom to refrain from speaking if one so chooses. 3. There are so many controversial issues regarding this amendment, so I will just include a few here: Flag-burning as freedom of speech Texas v.
Johnson 1989 Free Exercise regarding Polygamy Reynolds v. United States 1879 Teaching of Evolution in schools versus freedom of speech Epperson v. Arkansas 1968 Internet Child Pornography versus freedom of speech Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 2002 Bill of Rights, Amendment II. 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. 1. Warfare in the late 18 th century was much different than it is now.
It was a comparatively easier venture to support an army in those days, and in addition to a regular army, nations would also count citizen militias within their military ranks. Referred to as 'Minutemen' in the colonies, these citizen militias were used to great effect during the War for Independence. Afterwards, the new republic found itself responsible for its own national defense, and again relied heavily on these militia groups as defense forces. and deemed it necessary to include rights regarding arms in the Bill of Rights in the interest of maintaining these militias. I feel that this referred more to the citizen's obligation to bear arms in defense of the nation, than making sure every man can own a firearm if he pleases. 2. In United States v.
Miller 1939, The Court ruled that requiring registration of sawed off shotguns in the National Firearms Act of 1934 was not unconstitutional. A sawed off shotgun is a close range weapon meant to kill at close quarters, yet be easily concealable. However, it has never been considered as a weapon for the military. No 'well regulated militia' would have anything to do with a sawed-off shotgun. This is not the way this case is argued nowadays though. Gun enthusiasts say that only a particular weapon, a sawed off shotgun, was unprotected by the 2 nd Amendment due to its lack of relation to a militia.
Gun-control advocates argue that this case shows that use of guns should be limited to the militia refuting completely that people should be allowed to use guns for self defense or recreation. 3. Controversial Issues follow: Registration of Firearms United States v. Miller 1939 Legality of Handguns Quilici v. Morton Grove 1982 Brady Bill (Interesting in that the Court ruled that the bill was unconstitutional on the grounds that a federal program could not force state law enforcement officials to cater to its needs. ) Print v.
United States 1997 Bill of Rights, Amendment III. No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 1. One of the 'Intolerable Acts' put forth by George III and Parliament preceding the War for Independence, was the Quartering Act, stating that colonists would be responsible for quartering and feeding British troops stationed in their area, later amended to actually require that British troops be quartered in colonists' homes. This had a profound effect on colonist thought, wh...
Free research essays on topics related to: freedom of speech, war for independence, bill of rights, united states v, 1 st amendment
Research essay sample on United States V Freedom Of Speech
