Constitutional News!

By Marvis Gutierrez


From the Constitution...

Amendment 1 says, "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".

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment gives many freedoms to people, including Freedom of Religion. It gives the people to worship as they please, doesn't make limits on which religion you can practice, also includes atheists. The Founders didn't want to act like the British Parliament, making people join the Church of England, and burning protestants. An example would be when Obama used the term at a memorial for the victims of the Fort Hood massacre. This is a carefully worded attack upon religious freedom in this country, an obstruction the Progressive Secular Left has always sought to attack. I personally think that's wrong, people have the right of religion for a reason. We don't want to become like England in the olden days.

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of Speech, like the name implies, give people the right to talk whatever they want. There ARE some limits, such as you can't can't use libel and slander. And you especially can't say something such as, "Let's kill the President!". You can go to jail, even if you say you have "freedom of speech" because of course, there is obvious limitations. An example would be the Egyptian Protest. Thousands of Egyptian citizens protested, and some police officers threw tear gas and some even shot them. I believe that is unacceptable, I understand they're the government, but they should've noticed that the people didn't like what was happening. Later on, the people of Egypt won, of course.

Freedom of Press

This freedom allows people to make newspapers, to speak through press, and make a conversation through the media. Just like Freedom of Speech, Libel and Slander also works with this part of the Amendment. Sadly, Prior Restraint (government censoring information before it's live) is not subject to American Press. An excellent example with Libel would be a kidnapping with Freddie Grant as the culprit. The News Article says, "'Monster' charged with kidnapping missing girl". Libel, is a false written article that is intended to damage a person's reputation, and the culprit definitely thought that this was damaging. I personally believe that this was unacceptable. I know the News is trying to hook it's readers, but stretching it until it's damaging? I don't think that's right.

Freedom of Assembly/Petition

These two freedoms are commonly alike, the Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition. First of all Freedom of Assembly allows people to assemble in groups and do demonstrations. But, they can't hold meetings deciding on how to "kill a person" and such. Courts ruled that they can require a group to get a permit before holding meetings, just in case. A great example would be when a group of people were just hanging out at a shopping centre. There were multiple complaints from shoppers and shop-owners, and eventually the police was pulled into this. The local council banned the group of people from coming there, ever again. One of the guy's lawyers took the case to court, and the court disagreed. I personally think that those people should be able to come together at the shopping centre to discuss, nothing more.

The Right to Petition is basically, the right to present requests to the government without punishment. The Right doesn't only give the freedom to stand up and speak up about injustices, but allows you to change those injustices. The Original concept for the right actually came up in the Magna Carta, where the barons had the right to petition for the kingdom for anything that the thought was an injustice. A perfect is example is that recently, Texas wanted to break away from the U.S. So, they made a petition, and over 125,000 people signed it. The White House responds back saying that the Constitution did not have a right to walk away from the U.S. I personally am surprised how a state would want to leave the country, after all that we've been through, and it seems most of the state didn't like that either. I'm not saying that I approve or disapprove this, but utterly shocked.


From the Constitution...

Amendment 4 says, "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 probably cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons or things to be seized."

Search Warrants, etc.

This Amendment describes how one can get a Search Warrant. It's similar to the fourth amendment, which protects the privacy of the people. The only way to get a warrant, is to find a probable case.. then, and only then, will the judge allow you to get a warrant to search, etc. The Warrant would include the place to be searched for specific items.The reason why they added it to the Amendments was because before, Britain used general search warrants to be able to go to private homes. A good example that happened recently would be State of Rhode Island v. Michael Patino. The police searched the murderer's victim's phone, and found some surprising evidence. But basically, what the police did, is search on someone's phone without the use of a warrant. Which is against Amendment 4. I believe it's wrong to do that without a warrant. To just barge into someone's personal life, even though it aided the case with the right evidence, is plain wrong. It's probably personal for a reason.