The United States Constitution Prohibits The Making Of Any Law

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.” These are the exact words used by our country’s forefathers when they made these amendments in the late 1700’s. Ever since then there have been people trying to abolish this right by censoring

In the United States of America, the First Amendment of the Constitution assures individuals such civil liberties as the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. Freedom of speech preserves not only an individual’s right to vocally express themselves unabridged, it also allows them the right to burn the American flag, engage in silent protest, and more recently (2016), get a tattoo. In some respects, freedom of speech has come to mean the freedom of communication.

thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably assemble, and to petition

The employees can be afraid that the observations of their weak performance can eventually result in dismissal or extra

What does freedom of expression really mean? Why is it important to our democratic society? In the landmark case of R. v. Keegstra (1990), the issues of freedom of expression

Upon the ratification of the United States Constitution select individuals expressed Their opinions on how a government should be ran in a series of 85 articles. In these papers dubbed “The Federalist papers”, James Madison explains and defends the checks and balances system unique to our Constitution. In Federalist Paper No.51, Each branch of government is built so that their powers are checked by the powers of the other two branches; additionally, the powers of the three branches are checked by the people, who are the source of legitimate authority. “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government…If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

So the need for more drastic, shock and awe type actions from people desiring to be heard on any particular matter has been brought to the forefront. This is where the Bill of Rights has drastically come into play. At this point the Supreme Court has to protect the freedoms without stripping Americans of their rights entirely but it also has to protect Americans from those who wish to do harm to others under the protection of freedom of speech or expression. Not only does the First Amendment provide for freedom of speech but also freedom of expression which is as equally controversial. By examining the First Amendment and the protections and exclusions it has provided over the years through three highly controversial cases, it will allow the reader some insight into the difficulties surrounding the protection of free speech. The cases that are to be examined are Snyder v. Phelps, Morse v. Frederick and Texas v. Johnson. All of these cases present a different freedom of speech or expression issue that was brought to the Supreme Court and therefore, set a standard for future rulings regarding that particular issue.

To protect employees and employers; ensuring that their needs and rights, within the work place, are covered. They make sure everyone is treated equally and fairly, avoiding the risk of discrimination, both direct and indirect. This means making sure that everyone is given the same opportunities and freedom to develop within their work regardless of their race, sex and ability.

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

Furthermore, to coordinate, it safeguards workforces who participate in grievances, on-the-job demonstrations, picketing, and strikes. it states:

Freedom of speech, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment is a primary tenant among the liberties our forefathers intended to be bequeathed to future generations of Americans. They sought a world better than the one that they were born or immigrated into under British rule.

the liberty of the press”, “the proposed constitution appears to [violate] the first principles that

If I owned a business and placed a disclaimer on a job application that read, ‘Muslims need not apply’ is that a violation of their civil rights? Muslims are granted the freedom to publicly practice their religion without fear of discrimination and persecution however does that disregard my right to refuse participation? Why is it necessary for my family and my business to be unjustly exposed to a way of life that I disapprove of? Some would argue that the appropriate response to these questions is simple, “Because the Constitution says so.” The First Amendment of the Constitution forbids the government from restricting religious practices; however this forbiddance is more of a civil liberty than a civil right. This type of realization was

Amendment which gives us the right to freedom of speech and freedom of the press,

The individual selected and designated will ultimately affect the balance between the two models. Unfortunately achieving a balance is a complicated process due to the many elements involved in securing the rights of the individual outlined in the Constitution and still provide safety for the