...schools have the right to violate first and fourth amendment rights by requesting access of students’ Facebook accounts? The position that is being taken is no, it is against the first and fourth amendment rights for schools to access students’ Facebook accounts. The different views of this argument include the schools system’s side and the students’ side. Students believe that they are entitled to first and fourth amendment rights within the school. The school is violating the first and fourth amendments by requiring a Facebook password from the student in many cases. For example, a student is in trouble when writing on their profile and their opinion doesn’t match what the school views as appropriate. The school would then then punish the student and also require that the student provides a facebook password to access their personal account. The school’s side, which includes the faculty, principal and school administration, believes that students do not have full first and fourth amendment rights when on school property. A student then loses the rights associated with freedom of speech, press, assembly, and search and seizure in many cases. An examination of recent court cases and articles that contribute to the argument will be mentioned, including surveys and interviews of a sample of the student population at Eastern Michigan University to provide arguments and counterarguments that indicate that schools violate the first and fourth amendment when schools request access of students’...
Words: 1414 - Pages: 6
...Is There A Right Way Of Interpretation Of The First Amendment? The interpretation of the First Amendment as well as the entire Constitution has been a controversial issue for debates for decades. The majority of Americans simply interprets the First Amendment the way they see for it to be convenient for a particular situation. Because of its vagueness, the First Amendment leaves a lot of room for various arguments and assumptions. When we look at the textual interpretation of the First Amendment, context plays a vital role. The context tells us not to concentrate on details and to give words an expansive rather than narrow interpretation. Although interpretation of the text can take on many forms and there is no the right one, words do have a limited range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range should be permissible, especially when we are dealing with such an important document as the First Amendment. The article “On Racist Speech” by Charles R Lawrence serves as a great example of argumentative interpretation of the First Amendment. Charles Lawrence examines the power of words that can insult, assault and even exclude. He challenges the thought that all speech should be protected and urges his readers to examine their own beliefs and expectations of what their civil rights are. The author also presents a strong critique of the First Amendment that protect us from defamation, invasion of privacy while at the same time leaves the...
Words: 1270 - Pages: 6
...for word, match your thesis paragraph as it appears in Part II (above)). A. Thesis Statement: Legalization of same-sex marriage is the result of justice with American bill of rights so it should be protected as a law. B. Arguments- 1. Same-sex marriage is protected from protest assert banning even though freedom of speech from first amendment. 2. Same-sex marriage is protected from homophobic crimes. 3. Same-sex marriage is the result of realization a just society based on bill of rights. II. (Argument 1) – Same-sex marriage is protected from protest assert banning even though freedom of speech from first amendment. A. First amendment provides rights for freedom of speech. 1. First amendment...
Words: 728 - Pages: 3
...Many people believe that abortion is only a moral issue but it is also a constitutional issue. Involving six different amendments, the Roe v. Wade decision was greatly based on The Constitution. The supreme court decision in Roe v. Wade was incorrect legally and constitutionally. All unborn children are entitled to protection under the constitution for they are human beings, but the decision that was made after just after two years of arguing made it possible for unborn children to be aborted within the first six months of the pregnancy. One may wonder why such a situation would have to occur, the answer is simple, a minority of pro-life citizens made abortion illegal. This scene is not one that a person could envision occurring in the United States, a land that is considered to be contemporary and enlightened. This very panorama could become reality due to the moral arguments given by means of those who support pro-choice. The problem with these arguments is that they are based on nothing more than inaccurate, uninformed opinions. The Supreme Courts job is to, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional...
Words: 1410 - Pages: 6
...2014 the Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in Heien v North Carolina which was the first argued case during their new term. This case presents the question of whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop (Brief of Petitioner 2). This case arose in 2009 when police stopped Nicholas Heien in North Carolina for driving with one broken brake light. The officer issued Heien a citation for his light and then proceeded to ask him if he could search his car, which Heien consented to. During the search, the officer discovered a sandwich bag that contained 54.2 grams of cocaine and Heien was arrested on the spot for drug trafficking (Oyez Project). He plead guilty to two counts of drug...
Words: 3506 - Pages: 15
...issue of the constitutionality of gerrymandering. If referring to judicial precedent, there is a strong reason to argue that partisan gerrymandering should be allowed to exist, albeit not without limitations. Racial gerrymandering should be deemed unacceptable, which can be seen through the clear examples shown in this paper of the constitutional violations, particularly the 1st, 14th, and 15th Amendments. In Gill v. Whitford, Republicans sliced up Milwaukee because the minority presence in the city proved to greatly disadvantage their party when it came to electing candidates. In turn, the surrounding districts struggled to vote in Democratic representatives as it lost its concentration of minority voters. Clear racialized gerrymandering should be unconstitutional, whether or not it is “partisan gerrymandering.” On the other hand, Bensiek v. Lamone does not present any form of racial discrimination in its case. Political retaliation is cited in the argument as the motivation for gerrymandering, albeit this argument appears weak and unjustified. In a broad sense, both parties retaliate against one another in various...
Words: 1735 - Pages: 7
...On May 18, 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Plessy v. Ferguson that segregation on railway cars did not conflict with the 13th and 14th Amendments, causing many people since then to wonder why anyone would think segregation was constitutional. The argument that segregation complied with the 13th Amendment was simple enough; the 13th Amendment had abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, and the drivers of segregated railway cars technically were not forcing anyone to work as a slave (Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896). The 14th Amendment had determined who qualified as a U.S. citizen and had stated that all citizens should receive equal treatment, so segregationists argued that people of color could be treated as "equal...
Words: 351 - Pages: 2
...PROVISION: The fourth amendment of the U.S. constitution states that : “The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.” STATEMENT OF THE CASE: 1. On the morning of August 22, 2009, the police charged a petition against David Riley, a college student, who was driving his Lexus near his home’s neighborhood of San Diego. The officer who stopped Riley told the petitioner he stopped him for traffic violation, which eventually led to his arrest on weapons charges. He was driving the car with expired license registration tags, as his driver’s license was suspended, police is required to impound the car. Riley was considered to be involved in the shoot on August 2, considering the current situation and moment so separate charges were also issued for shooting on another vehicle, which intension to attempt murder, and...
Words: 2028 - Pages: 9
...Analyze the arguments presented in the “Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission” case to determine which arguments you find the most persuasive. Explain both your rationale and the probable impact of the outcome of this case on corporate governance moving forward. I = Issue (The Question) R = Rule of Law/Rationale A = Analysis/Discussion C = Conclusion/Court’s Decision Issue Should the government be able to suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity? Rule of Law The First Amendment states that 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. Analysis Kennedy was against the issue. -- Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it all. The first amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during a campaign for political office. For these reasons, political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it (Halbert, Ingulli p.32). Scalia was in favor of the issue. -- The dissent says that when the Framers "constitutionalized...
Words: 362 - Pages: 2
...been kicked out of the classroom. Engle v. Vitale was a landmark Supreme Court case, in which it was ruled that the public school could not be started or concluded with a formal reciting of a non-denominational prayer (Bill of Rights Institute, 2010). The following information will show both sides of the argument of if prayer should be allowed in schools. Background information will be given on the history of prayer in school and prayer in congress, and my personal thoughts on this important position. Argument There are many different viewpoints on the argument of prayer in schools. We will begin with the argument of allowing prayer in schools. The United States Constitution protects religious freedom under the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that Congress should not make any law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion (U.S. Constitution Online, 2010). The interpretation of the First Amendment has been the basis for many arguments of how to apply the information to laws on allowing or not allowing prayer in school. Being extremely general in their language, the first two clauses of the Amendment say nothing about how to apply their information. Advocates for including prayer in school have argued for a long time that banning the practice...
Words: 1690 - Pages: 7
...orientation, race, religion or ability. Less disturbing examples include insensitive or careless comments, jokes, and other expressions that are painful to those to whom they are directed, regardless of the intent of the person by whom they are spoken or written. The main focus of this essay is to discuss the current dominant structure within which the matter of hate speech is being debated. This structure draws heavily on the discussion of the Fourteenth and the First Amendments, which in my opinion are not adequate to the issue of hate speech. There is a pressing need for extra-legal standards for communicative interaction to handle this sensitive issue. Main Body In our society various laws have been invoked to regulate an increasingly extensive range of social communications. The very language with which we percept and talk about our needs, desires and disagreements is often highly legalistic (Glendon 1991). When reacting to someone else’s hurting experience, one may lament that there should be a law against such acts. But the existence of a law is hardly sufficient to prevent the hurt provide some compensation. Interestingly, appeals to the law are outlined in terms of different rights. For example, smokers appeal to their right to smoke but on the other hand non-smokers appeal to their right to clean air; pro-choice supporters appeal to women’s right to privacy, while pro-life...
Words: 1554 - Pages: 7
...sexual orientation, race, religion or ability. Less disturbing examples include insensitive or careless comments, jokes, and other expressions that are painful to those to whom they are directed, regardless of the intent of the person by whom they are spoken or written. The main focus of this essay is to discuss the current dominant structure within which the matter of hate speech is being debated. This structure draws heavily on the discussion of the Fourteenth and the First Amendments, which in my opinion are not adequate to the issue of hate speech. There is a pressing need for extra-legal standards for communicative interaction to handle this sensitive issue. Main Body In our society various laws have been invoked to regulate an increasingly extensive range of social communications. The very language with which we talk about our needs, desires and disagreements is often highly legalistic (Glendon 1991). When reacting to someone else’s hurting experience, one may lament that there should be a law against such acts but the existence of a law is hardly sufficient to prevent the hurt provide some compensation. Interestingly, appeals to the law are outlined in terms of different rights. For example, smokers appeal to their right to smoke but on the other hand non-smokers appeal to their right to clean air; pro-choice supporters appeal to women’s right to privacy, while pro-life believers...
Words: 1552 - Pages: 7
...John and Mary Doe, a couple that had offered their services in a previous abortion case, approached Coffee and Weddington who quickly included them in the case. Coffee and Wellington made a perfect couple of lawyers to head up the fight against the District Attorney of Texas, Henry Wade. Henry Wade chose one of his most capable lawyers, John Tolle, to defend him in this suit. Coffee and Weddington went off the argument that, "A woman is guaranteed the right to an abortion by her constitutional right to privacy. No state could interfere with a woman's decision to have an abortion which was a private matter." They based this on the first, fourth, fifth, eighth, ninth and fourteenth amendments. The first amendment protects a person's right to freedom of speech, which had been violated when a doctor was not aloud to talk to their patient about all forms of treatment. Coffee and Weddington stated that the fourth amendment, which protects a citizen from unreasonable search and seizure, should protect a person from being unlawfully questioned about their contraception. The Fifth Amendment creates privacy around citizens, which are safeguarded and should not be violated by the government. Coffee and Weddington used the eighth amendment, which guards against cruel and unusual punishment, in this case placed...
Words: 1446 - Pages: 6
...country to attend school in Saudi Arabia and they wanted him to testify in the trial of Sami Omar Al-Hussayen. Mr. al-Hussayen was tried and acquitted on charges of supporting terrorist organizations. Al-Kidd filed a civil suit against then Attorney General John Ashcroft alleging that “in his more than two weeks of detainment, he was strip-searched, shackled, interrogated without a lawyer present and treated as a terrorist. He was never charged with a crime and never called to testify against al-Hussayen, who was acquitted of the most serious charges against him” (Washington Post). The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented al-Kidd, claimed that he is one of 70 Muslim men who were treated similarly (Washington Post). Aschroft argued that he had absolute immunity from such civil suits seeing as how he was acting within the scope of his duties as US Attorney General. He also claimed that since...
Words: 2052 - Pages: 9
...right. In the Fifth Amendment the exclusionary rule states that no one shall be made in a criminal trial case to be a witness against themselves, and that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without applying due process of law. The exclusionary rule is in the fourth amendment and is intended to protect people from searches that are illegal and seizures. To protect against self-incrimination and to protect people from prosecution from evidence gathered by the police that is very illegal and violates the Fifth Amendment. In the sixth amendment the exclusionary rule applies to the violations which make sure every citizen has the right to counsel. The exclusionary rule is used and applies to anyone who lives in the United States. “The courts finally decided on the exclusionary rule, the rule that says that evidence illegally seized may not be used as evidence, as a means of enforcement. “We’re sorry" doesn't quite cut it. The courts gave as their rationale for the rule the concept of "unclean hands." If the courts, the symbol of our highest justice, use evidence they know to be illegally obtained, they condone through their use of the evidence the illegal action and they then find themselves with "unclean hands." (Hill) In Weeks v. United States during it the exclusionary rule was brought up. In the case the court held that evidence that was taken by the police was illegally taken by police who is in violation of the fourth amendment and it couldn’t...
Words: 1290 - Pages: 6
