| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "CENSORSHIP AMENDMENT": |
|
|
Censorship and the First Amendment, 2002.
A paper which deals with the First Amendment in the American Constitution and how it applies to the issue of censorship.
800 words (approx. 3.2 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 28.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
A paper which explains how the American Congress has interpreted the First Amendment when deciding on levels of censorship. The paper explores the different issues of what is and what is not defined as freedom of speech. Examples of what is not covered by the First Amendment may be obscenity, "fighting words" and incitement. The paper also discusses how, with the growth of the Internet, the laws should grow with technology and adapt themselves accordingly.
From the Paper
"An area which is not yet completely clear is the subject of Commercial Speech. Deceptive commercial speech can be banned by government, but further regulation of corporations must be taken on a case by case basis. The government can also control speech that is intended and likely to incite lawless action. This also applies in a situation where the speech poses a clear and present danger to the nations security. This is known as ?incitement? and was decided in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio."
| |
|
First Amendment Rights and Pragmatic Solutions, 2001.
A comparison between the First Amendment rights and courts' pragmatic approach to the Amendment.
1,190 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 0 sources, $ 40.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
The Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment, 2002.
Discusses the motives behind adopting a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget and some of the problems associated with the amendment.
899 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the reasons behind Congress's proposal for a Constitutional amendment that would require a balanced budget and the groups that supported the proposal. The paper also looks at the groups that opposed the proposal and their arguments against it. The paper concludes with a counter proposal that is intended to address the concerns of those both for and against the proposed amendment.
From the Paper
"Deficit spending in the eighties, coupled with two Gulf Wars and a slowing economy, have escalated the borrowing and spending of this country for nearly two decades straight. As the federal deficit grows, those within government can not help but heed the warning signs. With no end in sight, many inside the beltway have proposed initiatives for capping federal spending. The most notable of these, and perhaps most drastic, is the adoption of a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget. Proponents believe a balanced budget is necessary for the continued prosperity of the nation. They also believe budget oversights can be avoided when the President and lawmakers are held accountable for where they direct money."
| |
|
Wrongful Dismissal and the First Amendment, 2002.
An in-depth study of the abuse of the individual right in the American First Amendment.
2,300 words (approx. 9.2 pages), 17 sources, APA, $ 70.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
Constitutional Amendment, 2005.
A look at two proposals for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding the definition of marriage.
903 words (approx. 3.6 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 32.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
Interrogations and the Sixth Amendment, 2005.
A look at the implications that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has for legal interrogations.
885 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 2 sources, MLA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
Gay Marriage Amendment, 2008.
This paper argues against an amendment to ban gay marriage in the United States.
1,358 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 8 sources, MLA, $ 45.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
Rap Music and the First Amendment, 2002.
An argument for the rights of rappers to express themselves freely and to have their rights upheld under First Amendment.
1,400 words (approx. 5.6 pages), 4 sources, $ 53.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper will discuss the elements of censorship within the field of rap music and the rights of the First Amendment that gives all freedom of speech. The movement has been under attack for its 'offensive language' and makes a challenge in understanding what should be allowed as a public moral or censored by the public and its lawmakers. This paper will argue for the rights of rappers to have their rights upheld in the Constitution. If this government was set up to send a message of free speech, it should stand beside that philosophy.
| |
|
Missouri's Amendment 2, 2006.
A rebuttal essay arguing against Missouri's newly added Amendment 2.
750 words (approx. 3.0 pages), 7 sources, MLA, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
In November, Missourians voted for an amendment which clearly states that no person can clone or attempt to clone a human being, but it does allow for somatic cell nuclear transfer. This paper presents a rebuttal argument against Missouri's newly added Amendment 2. It covers three main arguments against the amendment: cloning, egg donation, and financial motives.
From the Paper
"In order to effectively clone, researchers will need to have women donate human eggs and this is an extremely dangerous process. The first step to this lengthy and risky process of donation is to stop the women's normal cycle by halting her ovaries' normal function. Then very high doses of hormones are injected daily into a women's body in order to hyperstimulate her ovaries into obtaining several mature eggs as opposed to the normal single mature egg. Occasionally the process can cause ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or OHSS."
| |
|
The Fourth Amendment, 2005.
This paper discusses the nature and authority of the Fourth Amendment.
675 words (approx. 2.7 pages), 3 sources, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
The 14th Amendment, 2006.
Relates the history of the 14th Amendment.
2,725 words (approx. 10.9 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, after the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that discrimination against African-Americans by private persons could be regarded as imposing slavery or involuntary servitude against them. The author describes the process that led to the creation and ratification of the 14th Amendment and outlines its powers. The author also presents Supreme Court cases and federal legislation based on this amendment, which supported anti-discrimination and the civil rights movement for not only African-Americans, but also all ethnic groups and new immigrants.
From the Paper
"However, the Great Depression could be viewed as an event which truly helped black Americans, for it became necessary for the federal government to provide many of the necessities for life to those who were either trapped in abject poverty or had lost their jobs as a result of the stock market crash of 1929. For example, the federal government and the Roosevelt Administration provided food, employment, housing, old age dependency and to some extend health benefits to all Americans, including African-Americans who had been the most hard-hit by the Great Depression which lasted from 1929 to roughly 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor."
| |
|
The 21st Amendment and Its Impact on American Society, 2006.
Discussion of the 21st Amendment to the US Constitution, which repealed prohibition.
1,586 words (approx. 6.3 pages), 6 sources, APA, $ 51.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
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."
| |
|
The Fourth Amendment, 2002.
An analysis of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and its implications on the police work place.
1,338 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the ramifications of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on police work. Specifically, it contains an analysis of how the Fourth Amendment helps and hinders police in their daily jobs. A concise description of the Fourth Amendment is provided, explaining its purpose to protect the citizens of the United States from unlawful search and seizure, and to grant them certain privacy rights.
From the Paper
"The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the citizens of the United States from unlawful search and seizure, and grants them certain privacy rights. These rights have been in place since the Constitution was written in 1787, and have gone through many decades of debate and refining in the American court system. What remains crystal clear about the Fourth Amendment as it relates to the day-to-day business of the police officer is the duty of the officer making an arrest or seizure to know and put into practice the Fourth Amendment rights of an individual before the arrest. The officer must make sure the case is not challenged later, and a guilty person goes free on a rights technicality. This is often one of the most difficult aspects of an officer's duty, because of technicalities of the law."
| |
|
The Fourth Amendment, 2002.
An examination of the relavence of the Fourth Amendment in America's current political climate.
2,458 words (approx. 9.8 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 74.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the history of the Fourth Amendment, the amendment itself and whether the rights covered are threatened today. Considering the current political climate in the United States since the 9-11 terrorist attacks, this paper discusses whether searches and seizures are unconstitutional when the nation's security is at risk.
From the Paper
"Americans hold very dear the Bill of Rights. Among the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights is the Fourth, one many refer to as the most ambiguous of the all the amendments. Search and seizure law is drawn from the Fourth and over the years the Supreme Court has come to view that its main purpose is the protection of a citizen?s property and privacy. However, according to the conclusion of the Court, the Fourth Amendment does not ?protect all property interests or apply to all situations where people might wish to protect their privacy.? Perhaps, never has this amendment felt more threatened than today. The attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, spurred the White House Administration to create the office of Homeland Security and pass the Homeland Security Act, an act many feel treads on citizens? rights protected by the Bill of Rights, in particular Fourth Amendment. "
| |
|
The Fourth Amendment, 2006.
An overview of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
2,339 words (approx. 9.4 pages), 23 sources, APA, $ 71.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
Few provisions of the Bill of Rights grew so directly out of the experience of the colonials as the Fourth Amendment, embodying as it did the protection against the utilization of the "writs of assistance." This paper provides an overview of the Fourth Amendment and examines several rulings where this amendment was applied.
From the Paper
"The decision in Terry v. Ohio (1968) established that some brief seizures may be made without probable cause. If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed or will soon be committed, that officer may briefly detain a suspect to frisk him for weapons and question him. This is known as a "Terry stop." The case of Wong Sun v. U.S. (1963) covered suspects who run out the side or back door as sufficient for probable cause, however, and there have been other cases in which suspicious behavior like dropping packages or using phones but not talking, have held up."
|
|
|
