Wednesday, September 16, 2009

My part (Amendment 1, the first 3 rights) (EDITED)

Right;
Freedom of Religion
Amend;
1
Source/ Originator;
Magna Carta, also reiterated by Thomas Paine in "Common Sense"
Argument Against;
I couldn't really find a very good argument against this. Help would be greatly appreciated.
Court case/ why?;
Engel V. Vitale (1962)
State of NY endorsed religion by creating a prayer to be said at the begining of every school day. Supreme court ruled this as illegal.
(FYI, this is the prayer Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.)
Contemporary/ why?;
The pledge is still widely debated whether it infringes on American's freedom of religion or not.





Right;
Freedom of Speech
Amend;
1
Source/ Originator;
Magna Carta
Argument Against;
Again, kind of difficult, who wouldn't want freedom of speech?
Court case/ why?;
Roth V. United States (1956)
This case decided that freedom of speech does not cover porfanity.
Contemporary/ why?;
Freedom of speech is used to shield slanderers from formal punishment. Also, this is being infringed upon by the Patriot Act.


Right;
Freedom of Press
Amend;
1
Source/ Originator;
John Milton's Areopagitica
Argument Against;
The state should have the right to be able to pull articles before they are published if they hurt the nation.
Court case/ why?;
Near V. Minnesota (1931)
This case decided that the state has no right to restrain the press prior to their release even if it threatens the well being of the state.
(Another FYI; This case came about because there was a man in the newspaper that said some local government officials were involved in gangs, drugs, etc. The supreme court ruled that it was a violation of the first amendment to have prior restraint on the press.)
Contemporary/ why?;
Many people are victimized by biased news reports that throw out whatever benefits their party without being fact checked. Example; the 2000 election. Fox news said Bush won when it was still up for debate.



That's all I have.


4 comments:

  1. For religion, you could put restrictions on radical fringes of religious groups that swear to attack the US.
    For speech, you could put restrictions on people who purposefully put out false information.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, the thing is the argument spot is for historical arguments. Like, what people thought about it when it was first released. It would work for the freedom of speech.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh that's how we do the argument part? haha I was thinking about it the wrong way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Haha! Yeah. But those could be added to the contemporary part!

    ReplyDelete