Abstract This paper addresses three potential new amendments to the constitution. The first of the amendments discussed addresses school prayer. The second and third amendments discussed address term limits for both members of Congress and for the United States president. The final amendment proposed seeks to overturn Amendment 22 that limits a president to two terms of four years in office. It also proposes that a president be elected of one term of 9 years, with a provision that congress may remove the president and call for a new election after the president has served at least three years in office.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Amendment Number 28 Congressional Term Limits
Discussion
Amendment -33
Conclusion
From the Paper "This amendment attempts to satisfy two very different groups of people who have conflicting ideas about school prayer. On one hand, it allows individuals and groups to conduct public prayer in a public school setting. On the other hand, it still protects the separation of church and State that is part of the first Constitutional Amendment in the Bill of Rights. (Bill of Rights) It appears that the majority of people want prayer returned to public school. A survey by the Pittsburgh Courier received a significantly large positive response to the question "Should prayer be returned to public schools.""
Abstract This paper examines the effect of the Wright Amendment on Southwest Airlines. It explains that the Wright Amendment is a part of federal air transportation law in the United States that places arbitrary restrictions on common carrier air passenger traffic to and from Love Field in Dallas. The author explores why Southwest Airlines was against the Amendment.
From the Paper "The Wright Amendment was a special interest addition to a major bill dealing with the airline industry that was enacted in the late ..."
Abstract This paper presents a history of the Fourth Amendment. The paper defines the Fourth Amendment, explains what it entails from a legal perspective what it entails and discusses the history of search and seizure Legality.
From the Paper "The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: The right of the 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 supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The Fourth Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure against..."
Abstract This paper provides a discussion of the history, creation and ratification of the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This Amendment repealed prohibition, and allowed the sale and consumption of alcohol to resume in the United States. The social climate in the era leading up to prohibition is discussed, as well as the results of prohibition. Some holes in the 21st Amendment are discussed in view of our current century. The author, however, concludes that the U.S. Constitution remains a living document that is capable of responding to changes in American society.
From the Paper "During 1933, laws were passed in 43 states that provided for conventions in that or the following year (with the exceptions of Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and North Dakota) (Livingston 211). During the same year conventions were held in thirty-eight states of which thirty-seven ratified the amendment and one (South Carolina) rejected it. The thirty-sixth ratification was received in the late afternoon of December 5, 1933 and the certificate was issued by the Secretary of State less than an hour later (Livingston 211).
On December 6, 1933, the thirty-seventh ratification was received from Maine; as a result, it required less than eleven months after its submission to the states for the amendment to be ratified by the requisite three-fourths and the ill-fated experiment of national prohibition ended (Livingston 211). One of the reasons the process went so smoothly may have been based on a misconception among lawmakers at the time. For example, in his essay, "No More 'Cherry-Picking,'" Aaron Nielson (2004) reports that the 21st Amendment achieved the required votes in each house of Congress without causing much substantive debate, most likely because the majority of Congressmen at the time considered section one of the amendment, the simple repeal of constitutional Prohibition, as being its main thrust: "It seems that sections two and three of the Amendment were seen as being primarily procedural sections, necessary to support and implement section one" (Nielson 281). The implications of that fateful misperception have come back to haunt legislators today, particularly as they apply to section two."
Abstract This paper examines the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution under the Bill of Rights. The author points out that this amendment prohibits unlawful searches and seizures on the part of the government and is aimed at protecting the security and privacy of individual citizens from government intrusions. The paper reviews the amendment and suggests some contemporary challenges to its authority.
From the Paper "Anyone who has ever watched any of the number of courtroom dramas broadcast on television these days will have heard of the Fourth Amendment. For lawyers, it seems to be a phrase tossed around with ease with the likes of probable cause and unlawful search and seizure. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution constitutes one of the most important elements of the modern American justice system, but is one part that is not so well understood by the general populace. Additionally, the increasing number of electronic crimes via computers and the Internet has made the Fourth Amendment even more difficult to understand and appropriately apply for citizens and lawmakers alike."
Describes a policy, adopted by Stanford Students, which restricts certain types of free speech and examines whether this policy conflicts with the first amendment or is a just application of John Stuart Mill's harm principle.
650 words (approx. 2.6 pages), 2 sources, 2002, $ 26.95
Abstract Stanford Students adopted a policy that made personally vilifying expressions an offense subject to penalties. The policy described outlawed expressions as "…words or non-verbal symbols…commonly understood to convey direct and visceral hatred or contempt for human beings on the basis of their sex, race, color, handicap, religion, or national or ethnic origin. This paper examines whether this policy should be ruled a violation of the First Amendment's right to free speech or whether it is a legitimate application of John Stuart Mill's harm principle.
Abstract This paper discusses how the United States Supreme Court has heard only five cases in relation to the Second Amendment to the Constitution. These cases include US v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, Miller v. Texas, US v. Miller, and Lewis v. US. In 1876 US v. Cruikshank was brought before the Supreme Court. The paper reviews the case of 1876, when U.S. v. Cruikshank was brought before the Supreme Court. The Court held that it was not an individual's right to "bear arms", that the ability of citizens to carry weapons was intended to address the need of the states to form a militia for the purpose of protecting the population.
Abstract This paper discusses the history and application of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the United States Constitution. The paper analyzes each amendment and describes its importance with regards to the close of the slavery era in the U.S. The paper also discusses the implications of the landmark court-case, Plessy v. Ferguson and how these amendments related to it.
Table of Contents:
The History of These Three Amendments Why Support These Amendments The Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Who Benefited From The 13th Amendment?
Hard-Line Southerners and Their Evil Deeds
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Plessy v. Ferguson
The 15th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
From the Paper "In 1910, Arthur W. Machen wrote in the Harvard Law Review - forty years after the passage of the 15th - that this amendment has been "despised, flouted, nullified, evaded," and moreover, had never up to and through the time Machen wrote his piece, been backed by the High Court to assure the suffrage rights of black citizens. And indeed it took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to truly move the country forward into an era that the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were supposed to open the door for. Jim Crow and Southern segregation were alive and well even up into the 1960s in some Southern states, as witnessed by the fact that President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and U.S. Attorney General Bobby Kennedy had to send federal troops into Mississippi in 1962 to allow James Meredith to enter the University of Mississippi."
Abstract The paper explores the First Amendment and three of its provisions, namely, the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the press. The paper refers to landmark cases on the First Amendment that have set a precedent for all future cases in the United States.
Outline:
Introduction
Rights and Responsibilities Given to U.S. Citizens by the Constitution
The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech
The First Amendment: Freedom of Religion
The First Amendment: Freedom of the Press
Conclusion
From the Paper "Throughout the course of the brief history of the United States no topic has been more widely debated and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court than the First Amendment and its provisions. Including some of the most fundamental reasons the United States was founded including freedom of speech, freedom or religion and freedom of the press, the First Amendment has been placed under a microscope with the U.S. Supreme Court acting as its interpreter. With many variations of multiple issues both of historical and personal importance cases are heard not only to reach a verdict but to be put into the books as future references for issues that have not yet arisen."
Abstract This paper examines the fact the history shows that uncertainties of a fragile First Amendment during times of crisis are well founded, as seen in the post September 11th era. It defines and provides a history of the First Amendment. It uses numerous legal cases to support its claims. The paper describes the Five Freedoms. The author states that the First Amendment right of free association has been rigorously compromised, particularly for those connected with Muslim organizations that the government believes supports anti-American causes.
Table of Contents
History and the First Amendment Free Expression on Private Property
Hate Speech
Clear and Present Danger
The Problem of ''Symbolic Speech.''
Conclusion
Reference:
Works Cited
From the Paper "The most basic element of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to utter them without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide extensive justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to normalize the content of the speech. A less rigorous test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may proscribe some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message."
Abstract This paper introduces, discusses, and analyzes the topic of the Sixth Amendment. More specifically, the paper discusses interrogations and the Sixth Amendment, while addressing why a statement is sometimes inadmissible under the Sixth Amendment, despite the fact that Miranda did not apply or was complied with. It also questions when the Sixth Amendment attaches, how it is violated, and what precautions are necessary.
From the Paper "The Sixth Amendment is very intricate. Often, a statement is inadmissible in court for the smallest of reasons, such as an officer forgetting to administer the Miranda rights to a suspect, or not getting a lawyer fast enough when a suspect becomes "the accused." A suspect should not be able to incriminate himself by compulsory questioning, and often this happened, and so, judges took on and defined the Sixth Amendment so suspects and police departments both had more rights. Even when Miranda is complied with, there are other situations that can hinder Sixth Amendment rights, such has having an attorney present, and not questioning a suspect until an attorney is present. In addition, even though Miranda has been correctly administered, law enforcement personnel can threaten, coerce, or frighten a suspect into self-incriminating themselves, and this would make the information inadmissible in court. Even if the suspect voluntarily gives information, if they have not specifically waived their rights, they cannot incriminate themselves, and the evidence will not stand. This is why law enforcement personnel must be completely aware of the Sixth Amendment and all its' implications."
Abstract This paper argues that the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Marriage Amendment, represents a repudiation of the rights and freedoms already granted to all citizens in the Constitution because its intended purpose is to deny gays and lesbians the right to a legal marriage. The paper contends that a better amendment regarding the institution of marriage would be the Amendment for Total Equality because it would guarantee to all citizens the legal rights and benefits of marriage and seeks to prevent and, ultimately, eliminate legal discrimination against homosexuals.
From the Paper "The definition of civil marriage is currently defined by state law. According to the Federalist principles underlying the creation of the union, individual states have the right to define the legal parameters of marriage: "the state is free to set limits to the circumstances in which marriage may be permitted, and judicial interpretation thereof," ("Federal Marriage Amendment" 2004). The federal government cannot offer a blanket definition of marriage. However, a proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States: H.J. Res 56, would place universal parameters on the definition of the social institution. Also called the Federal Marriage Amendment, the proposal reads: "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups," ("Federal Marriage Amendment" Section One, cited by Longley 2004). Support for H.J. Res 56 is relatively strong. Its proponents seek primarily to prevent gays and lesbians from being able to legally marry."
Abstract This paper analyzes how, in the U.S.A. today, both of these amendments have come under attack and it describes the numerous social and political controversies surrounding them. The First Amendment declares that the government cannot encourage the belief or practice of any religion, while the Second Amendment says that the American public cannot be restrained from owning firearms. The writer continues by addressing the problems many have with this constitution. The writer concludes that these amendments will remain but will continue to engender controversy.
From the Paper "The freedom of speech and of the press have also come under attack. The amendment mentions "free exercise" of the right to say what one wishes or print what one wishes; however, if a person was to publicly endorse the assassination of the President, that person would be quickly arrested and most likely thrown in jail, an act that stands in deep conflict with the idea of "free exercise."
Regarding the freedom of the press, the best example occurred in June of 1971 when the Supreme Court had to decide the landmark case in which President Nixon and the Justice Department tried to prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers. The newspapers involved in the case then took their concerns to the Supreme Court and on June 30, 1971, voted in favor of the newspaper's rights to publish the Pentagon Papers. Of course, certain individuals, especially those in the Justice Department, thought that the publishing of these papers would affect national security. Either way, the 1st Amendment makes it crystal clear that the press has the right to publish anything it desires."
Abstract In this article, the writer discusses that Congress should not adopt a resolution calling for an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban same-sex marriages. The writer maintains that such an amendment is not necessary to address any real problem and would cause problems. Further, the writer argues that this is a political ploy. In addition, the writer maintains that such an amendment would jeopardize the separation of church and state. The writer concludes that the Federal Marriage Amendment is not needed practically, may cause unexpected problems, is a cynical political ploy, undercuts the judiciary, would jeopardize the separation of church and state and should not be adopted.
From the Paper "Further, Chapman finds strong practical arguments for gay marriage. It will not increase unfettered sex. Sex, fettered or unfettered at one's preference, is easily and abundantly available. Given liberal divorce laws, many children already live outside the idealized mom-and-daddy family, and others are suffering because their parents do not divorce when they should. If children are better off when their parents marry, and adults generally build more stable relationships in which to raise children if they commit themselves to marriage, how are the children of gay couples better off if their parents barred from marrying? Proponents of the Federal Marriage Amendment leave these questions frustratingly unaddressed."
Abstract This paper takes a look at six applications in order to compare the First Amendment rights to free speech to the courts' pragmatic approach to First Amendment issues.
From the Paper "When it comes to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution the courts are often caught between a rock and a hard place. If the courts protect the right of the First Amendment there are sometimes substantial consequences that could have been avoided by suppression. If the court rules to protect the interests of many and rules against freedom of speech then it finds itself in violation of the constitution. It is a balancing system in which the court is constantly weighing the good of all against the nature of the first amendment. It is a battle that will continue as long as we are a nation that abides by the constitution, which also allows us to request court intervention and mediation regarding the amendment."
