of

A Deconstruction of the 4th (and why its meaning has changed)

Video

Written Component

The writs of assistance were search warrants issued to British law enforcement officers to search ships and homes for smuggled goods to upkeep smuggling laws. These writs of assistance and general warrants that England was imposing on the colonial homes and businesses, specifically to enforce trade and navigation laws, must have concerned the authors of the Bill of Rights. Limiting the power the government has on searching and seizing the peoples’ property would especially be an anti-federalist goal since they advocated for individual liberties.   

The common interpretation of the fourth amendment centers around safeguarding the security of individuals, ensuring that neither they nor their belongings can be encroached upon or violated without a reasonable warrant. Warrants are typically awarded to enforcement officers by a judge or a magistrate and must be produced based on probable cause, or be reasonable enough to confiscate or enter your property. Additionally, warrants must be clear about what they will allow authorities to collect or search. The goal of the fourth amendment is that of maintaining citizens’ privacy and security so that you and your property cannot be intruded on or violated without a warrant.   

The exclusionary evidence rule makes all evidence that has been collected illegally, void. The Fourth Amendment has sparked debate over whether the methods of search for the collection of evidence are legal or not. Recently, the controversy has centered due to a shift of applications from physical property, such as the search of your house or your belongings, to informational or intellectual property, such as the mass collection of your internet metadata. Specifically, digital privacy, or the safeguarding of logs that internet providers or telecommunications companies store on servers has been at issue, since the information citizens feel violated by the collection and search of their personal, otherwise private data. On the other hand, the search and collection of evidence helps catch serious criminals who wouldn’t have been otherwise caught. This complicates matters because who decides when the collection is necessary and when it is intrusive?   

Locke considered the right to private property a natural right. Locke’s enlightenment ideals align with the fourth amendment right to no seizure without a proper warrant because he believed the property was private.  I find the interpretation times have changed argument more effective because it points out the similarities between physical and non-physical property. The conflict I come to with the argument that informational property should be treated the same as physical is that times have changed, and oftentimes, there is more information about us online than in our own homes. We should have the right to keep that information private. Although the data is available to internet companies, internet companies do not have the power to arrest you on your own, but the government does. The collection of data can fall under the Fourth Amendment depending on who is collecting it. If I could amend the Fourth Amendment, I would make a point to differentiate what rights people have regarding the security of their physical property versus their digital property.

Analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress cannot make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religious beliefs. The clause is part of the Bill of Rights, ten constitutional amendments that listed rights the federal government must protect. It was a natural outgrowth of a long debate about religious freedom in the Thirteen Colonies, where some colonies restricted religion while others, such as Virginia, enabled religious freedom. Founding Fathers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson advocated for religious freedom, which was eventually instated in the First Amendment. 

The plain English interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is that Congress may not pass laws that stop citizens from practicing their religion. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to allow some limitations. The central question for interpreting the clause is to what extent it protects religious actions considered harmful to society. In the case Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that, while a law may not regulate religious beliefs, it can regulate actions that result from those beliefs. The Supreme Court revised the rules in Wisconsin v. Yoder to limit laws that regulate religion to situations where the public interest is “compelling,” meaning it must be absolutely necessary to protect the state or citizens. Further laws and cases have added that regulations on religious actions must use the “least restrictive means,” limiting religious expression as little as possible even if that makes enforcing laws harder. The result of these interpretations is a compromise between total adherence and disregard for the Free Exercise Clause

The debate surrounding the Free Exercise Clause reflects multiple themes from our class and throughout history. The American Constitution, including    a vision of religious tolerance developed by European Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire demonstrates history’s  interconnectedness. The clause also shows how laws reveal values, similar to how the Manden Charter in Mali provided a lens into that society. Finally, the Free Exercise Clause demonstrates the complexities of dealing with  the “Other,” protecting minority rights in the Constitution but allowing old white men with power to limit those protections through court cases.

Personally, when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, I think both abolishment or literal interpretation would be dangerous. Without the clause, the majority could dictate the expression of beliefs of minority groups. A literal interpretation, however, would let people use religion as an excuse and make it impossible to protect society. The only solution is a compromise as the court has attempted to achieve, but it is challenging to find the perfect balance. This difficulty leads to the Supreme Court occasionally allowing unjust violations, like upholding President Trump’s “Muslim Ban” against many majority Muslim countries. It also sometimes allows religious practices that harm people, such as making it legal for employers to deny full healthcare due to religious beliefs in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. While compromises may be complicated and lead to some bad decisions, finding a balance is necessary to create a functioning democracy.

Jack Korngold — 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

First Amendment — Freedom of Speech Clause 

“Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” 

The concept of free speech per the First Amendment is a critical principle introduced in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The historical context for this clause is rooted in the American experience with the oppressive government of the British Empire. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to satisfy the concerns of the Anti-Federalists to protect the rights of individuals from the power of the central government. Even before the Revolution, journalist John Peter Zenger was prosecuted by the colonial government of Massachusetts for printing unpopular truths about the Governor.

This prosecution reflected a suppression of free speech, which the colonists believed violated their inalienable rights. The common interpretation of free speech rights has been the duty to protect both an individual’s and groups’ ability to express themselves from government intervention across various mediums, including speech, print and online forums. This protection is quite broad and encompasses a variety of beliefs, and includes the protection of opinions that many Americans might find distasteful or offensive.

Even the burning of the American Flag as a form of political speech was protected by the Supreme Court as demonstrated in the ruling of the Texas vs. Johnson case in 1989. The broad interpretation of free speech rights is seen as necessary for the preservation of our democracy. A central debate about this Constitutional right is how restrictive our interpretation should be in its protection. One view is that free speech should be limited for national security purposes — in the Schenck v. United States case, the Supreme Court read the First Amendment in a restricted way so that people could not criticize the government in a time of war and argued that if there was “clear and present danger” to the country, then the speech could be restricted. In contrast, in the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, the court was less restrictive and ruled that high school students could protest the Vietnam War and that teachers could not stop the students from showing their opposition.

This concept of free speech in the First Amendment is clearly an example of an “inalienable right” that earlier thinkers, such as John Locke, thought must be guaranteed by a government based on the Social Contract. This right also reflects Rousseau’s view of the General Will as expressed in his conception of the Social Contract. With respect to how restrictive our interpretation should be, it would be necessary to have high standards for what constitutes a “clear and present danger” to the country as highlighted by the Schenck case.

The standards for enforcement must be strict, otherwise governments could unjustly suppress opposing points of view that represent no real threat to the country, but that interfere with an Administration’s political agenda. Some have also argued for the possibility of amending the language of this clause to remove the protections for “hate speech.” My proposal is that hate speech be more narrowly defined in the Amendment by words or images that incite or provoke violence or harm against a particular group purely because of their identity. Regardless of differences of opinion, the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment is a foundational element of American society, even though we might not always agree on how it is to be interpreted.

 

Bibliography

Vile, John R. “John Peter Zenger.” In The First Amendment Encyclopedia, edited by Middle Tennessee State University. Middle Tennessee State University, 2009. Last modified 2009. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1235/john-peter-zenger.

 

There was no information on John Peter Zenger in the Oyez Archive, and so, I cited an outside source. All of the other cases however, are from the Oyez Archive.

The First Amendment: Free Speech and Freedom of Speech

Video

Written Component

In the constitution, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects Americans freedom of speech. When the Bill of Rights was written in 1789, the American colonies had recently revolted against British rule. Previously, the British Monarchy had controlled the press and saying bad things about the British crown was a crime one that could be punished by imprisonment or death. However, in writing the Constitution, and adapting it with the Bill of Rights, the founding fathers attempted to enshrine important ideals of democracy — that people should be free to say what they wish and the press should be able to criticize public officials — with the First Amendment.

It is important to note that this does not apply to private companies, employers, or landowners. While the amendment refers only that Congress may not restrict freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that this applies to the entire Federal government. Moreover, in the case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also restricts the power of states and local governments. The protections of the First Amendment are not unilateral, however, and there are a few hotly debated exceptions of when free speech is, or is not, protected. Government officials, for example public school teachers, can be punished for certain kinds of speech not endorsed by the government.

Filters not based on the content of a message but rather can be based on some other quality such as noise or other kinds of disruption are sometimes not restricted, like in the case of Turner Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1994) but this is on a varying case by case basis. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can restrict “low” speech. Defamation, threats, obscenities, and misleading advertising all constitute “low” speech that the government regulates.

The Supreme Court is extremely loath to use “low” speech. For example, the 1978 case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie was one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court, wherein the judges defended the freedom of a neo-Nazi group that aimed to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois. The NSPA argued that the Illinois Supreme Court violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment by restricting their right to protest. Today, the First Amendment is still a matter of hot debate.

An example of an important issue regarding the modern day application of the First Amendment arises from campaign donations in politics. The Supreme Court has held that political contributions are “speech” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled the government is allowed to regulate contributions if there is a risk of undue influence in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission (2003) the Court ruled that the government could regulate corporation’s spending on political expenditure. All in all, these issues of free speech and the questions of what kinds of expression the government should, and should not, restrict extend into the present day and can have serious ramifications on everyday life, elections, and more. 

Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

The Freedom of Speech clause, written in the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, is a foundational pillar of American democracy. James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights created the Freedom of Speech clause. Because Madison viewed a free republic as ultimately dependent on public opinion, this clause gave people the right to communicate with one another without fearing any form of reprisal. The Freedom of Speech clause is a cornerstone of a free and open society. It recognizes that the exchange of ideas, even controversial or unpopular ones, is vital for progress, the pursuit of truth, and the functioning of a democratic society.

The commonly understood meaning of this section in the constitution (the First Amendment, specifically the Freedom of Speech clause) gives the right to freedom of both religion and speech, it is the basis of self-fulfillment and gives the right for someone to express their own thoughts and communicate freely with others. The scope of the Freedom of Speech clause is extremely broad, encompassing many variations of expression. It also protects written communication, different forms of art like film, video, painting, or poetry, and even nonverbal gestures or manners that convey a particular message like American Sign Language (ASL).

There are many ways to interpret this amendment, in different circumstances invoking the Freedom of Speech clause can be seen as either legal or illegal. For example, a “true threat” can be punishable by law if speech threatens to incite violence or gives the possibility of any physical, unwanted action, thus making it illegal. However, the Supreme Court repeatedly defends the ability to voice dissenting viewpoints, even when they contradict accepted standards or cause controversy. This occurred in the case Schenck v. United States (1919), where the state used the clause against Schenck.

The Supreme Court has acknowledged that speech, in all of its manifestations, acts as an essential catalyst for the discussion of ideas, the search for the truth, and the advancement of society. Even though there are many examples of Supreme Court trials that uphold the Freedom of Speech, the government can refuse to acknowledge the Freedom of Speech clause only if it is intended or likely to produce imminent lawless action. This was decided during Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969), the first instance where the Supreme Court interfered with the First Amendment. 

The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights is very similar to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, made by France during their revolution. It was created in 1789 exactly one hundred years after the Bill of Rights. Both documents share a similar foundation in advocating for fundamental human rights and freedoms. Both the Declaration and Bill of Rights imprint Freedom of Speech as a base for many different clauses established thereafter.  It is crucial to remember that both the Declaration of Rights of Man and the Bill of Rights acknowledges that this freedom has some restrictions, such as those against defamation, incitement to violence, and speech that presents a clear and present danger.

The 3rd and 4th Amendments of the Bill of Rights

Video

Written Component

The motivation for the Third Amendment being included in the Bill of Rights came from the Quartering Act. The Quartering Act was a law that allowed British soldiers to be sheltered in the private homes of colonists.(1) The amendment makes it unconstitutional for the government to house soldiers in the private residences of citizens of the United States without the owners’ express permission in times of peace, but during war the process of quartering soldiers must be prescribed for by law. Some scholars interpret the Third Amendment as applying to increasingly militarized police forces in addition to the military. However, this understanding of the amendment was defeated in the 2015 case Mitchell v. City of Henderson where the plaintiffs were forced out of their home by police in preparation for a nearby operation. Mitchell sued the city on the grounds that his Third Amendment rights had been violated, but a Federal Court decided that the police are not soldiers so the amendment did not apply.(2) The Third Amendment, like checks and balances on power in other parts of the constitution, is a roadblock to government overreach. The policing interpretation of the Third amendment is persuasive to me because it controls the interactions between citizens and the police. In my opinion the amendment should be altered to protect against quartering from both military and law enforcement personnel. 

General warrants in Britain and writs of association in the colonies were some of the major pressures that led to the inclusion of the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. General warrants and writs of association allowed law enforcement to search a person’s property without any suspicion of a crime. The Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures. It requires that a warrant only be issued with a reasonable level of suspicion for a crime, and with specific objectives. What constitutes probable cause or a search in the Fourth Amendment has been debated by many legal scholars. A Supreme Court decision in 1985 over the case Dow Chemical Company vs. The United States partially answered the question of what constitutes a search. Dow Chemicals sued the US on the basis that its Fourth amendment rights had been violated after the EPA observed their factory grounds without a warrant. The Court decided in the favor of the United States, because the factory’s grounds were an open area and the Fourth amendment only deals with “the invasion of areas where intimate activities occur.” The Fourth amendment is another amendment like the Third that deals with the specter of an authoritarian government overpowering the people. I agree with the interpretation that mass government surveillance is unconstitutional because it searches the personal data of people unsuspected of a crime. I also agree with the interpretation that security checks are constitutional, because people are making a decision to agree to the security check when they enter the area. I would not advocate any changes to the Fourth amendment because it protects the people from unreasonable law enforcement activity.

 

1 – American Battlefield Trust, “The Quartering Act,” American Battlefield Trust, accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/quartering-act#:~:text=The%20last%20act%20passed%20was,quarter%20or%20house%20British%20soldiers.

2 – Leonard Niehoff, “What Is the Third Amendment, and Will the Supreme Court Ever Examine It Again?,” interview by Andrew Cohen, Brennan Center for Justice, last modified August 3, 2022, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/what-third-amendment-and-will-supreme-court-ever-examine-it-again#:~:text=Into%20this%20category%20goes%20the,up%20to%20the%20Revolutionary%20War.

 

First Amendment – Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

The Freedom of Speech Clause is found in the First Amendment and has been highly important since it was ratified in 1791, and continues to be relevant in the present day. The first amendment was created with the original intent to protect each individual’s values and their right to expression. The Freedom of Speech clause prevents the government from ridding the people of their own opinions and from having total control over the way the people are able to interact with others.

It is primarily to state the allowance for people to criticize their own government without retribution. In many countries people face severe repercussions for presenting judgment to their government but this clause enforces the people’s abilities to speak their mind. This amendment was first put in place because the people wanted a written document stating their rights. The Freedom of Speech Clause is commonly understood as the law that gives all people the right to express any idea or opinion they possess openly without any risk of punishment, no matter what the view may be.

Additionally, that they can display these thoughts freely in any manner of expression. But, what a lot of people don’t realize, is the specificity of the amendment and the limitations within it that it holds. This clause presents the right for all people to publicly share their ideas freely without the fear of being punished by the government.  However, the Freedom of Speech Clause does not just give all people the right to say whatever they please to whomever.

The limitation is that people are solely protected from consequences being given from the government, and not others. For example, people can still legally be fired from a job as a result of expressing an opinion unless they are government employees. Freedom of Speech is highly debated as it is disagreeable among many whether or not any ideas should be acceptable to be expressed. This clause has been and continues to be controversial with the argument over making exceptions for what cannot be said publicly.

Most can agree that hate speech and words evoking violence shouldn’t be presented. But it gets difficult to incorporate that message into a law as it is difficult to create the limitation as all people have different views and different definitions of what they find offensive or politically correct. With this clause, the speech that gets the strongest protection is political speech. Praise or criticism of any political happenings are almost always protected by the First Amendment.

It has what is classified as ‘Preferred Position’ which is that all regulations, laws, and executive acts that will limit political speech are almost always shut down by the courts. A very impactful court case on the freedom of speech was Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1968. A Ku Klux Klan leader was delivering speeches that were extremely offensive and could be considered threatening to many people. Since it was political, the court ruled that it was protected by the First Amendment.

Something we also studied this year that can relate to the Freedom of Speech Clause is John Locke and his enlightenment ideas. Both were formed with the intention of giving more rights to the people. John Locke argued that people have the right to life, liberty, and property. The first amendment and John Locke’s enlightenment ideas share similar roots as they both allow people to have more agency and ability to express themselves. The Freedom of Speech Clause has impacted history greatly and continues to be relevant in the present day. 

Amalia – The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights was an agreement of the populous that there should be no federally established church. This decision was reached because before the revolution the Church of England was federally mandated in the southern colonies, while the northern colonies had their Puritan establishments. These different establishments bred dissenters, who were often punished for preaching without a license or refusing to pay taxes to a church they disagreed with. The topic of religion caused conflict in the years before the revolution, dividing the people of this new country instead of bringing them together under one previously imagined, now real, community and shared identity.

The Establishment Clause of the Bill of Rights is commonly understood to have prohibited the government from establishing a state-mandated or federal religion for the nation, effectively separating church and state in the United States. 

This clause has been publicly understood to have separated the church and state in the United States, however many people have had interpretations of this clause as it regards government funding and government-sponsored prayer. Many of the matters of debate that spawn from this clause connect to religion and how it should interact with public education, all according to how the courts interpret the constitution. In relation to government funding, some argue the government must remain neutral between religious and non-religious institutions that provide education or other social services. Others argue that taxpayer funds shouldn’t be given to religious institutions if they might be used to further religious ideas because it violates the separation between church and state that the clause set in place. Through Everson v. Board of Education (1947) and Board of Education v. Allen (1968) all students of religious schools gained access to transportation and textbook funds. As well, Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995) deemed it unconstitutional under free speech and free exercise principles to exclude otherwise eligible recipients from government assistance because their activity is religious in nature. On the topic of government-sanctioned prayer the courts determined it unconstitutional for public schools to lead students in religious activities, even voluntary in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963). These decisions, though controversial to much of the public, were not to the Justices: it would have been seen as government sponsored religion which goes against the Establishment Clause’s separation between church and state.

The Establishment Clause protects citizens rights to practicing their religion freely, without persecution, also ensuring that the government of the United States isn’t biased towards certain religions. This clause ensures that the obligatory religion that the colonists experienced under the monarchy could not happen in their new nation. The Establishment Clause also protects those facing religious persecution. With religious tolerance being written as an amendment to the Constitution, America became a place of refuge for those experiencing religious oppression; many Jewish people in the early 20th century who fled pogroms (planned massacres of Jewish people in eastern Europe) were able to make a safe life for themselves and their families in the United States. The religious tolerance that the Establishment Clause implemented has had a long lasting impact on the peoples and cultures that make up America to this day as well as how cases pertaining to religion are handled in federal Courts.