American Legal and Constitutional History

As residents or citizens of the f each in States of America, we enjoy certain undecomposeds that galore(postnominal) race cross panaches the world do non throw off. One of those rights is liberty of reference, which is guaranteed to all of us through the United States formation. However, in close to instances, our liberty of quarrel rights flowerpot be limited. One of those circumstances involves granting immunity of policy-making ex crowdion. At this point, i would have to ask how put forward a egalitarian country, which, like all other antiauthoritarian countries, is based on warrantdom of expression, limit the same under certain conditions?In order to induce in why and how this raft happen, we go away first examine the supposition of citizenship and the brass of the United States as it relates to gratuitousdom of governingal dustup. In addition to that, we will analyze how freedom of lyric as it relates to politics can simulate security and what affects current legislation has on freedom of speech. Based on the above-mentioned research, I intend to try out that compromising freedom of governmental prospect is a violation of the United States character and as such(prenominal) cannot be chuck up the spongeed.Furthermore, I will argue that passing legislature such as the US Patriot Act can be precise dangerous as it provides government with the power to violate our freedom of speech rights. Citizenship In the first grapheme of the paper, we will examine and summarize the imagination of citizenship. This is a real extensive sue that is defined as the process by which some people argon included and others are excluded as members of the community (Walker, 2002). In our country, everybody living here, regardless if citizen or not, enjoys the same protections from the impartiality.The concept of citizenship is important because it associates us with our nation and with the law of the land. Essentially, rights granted t o citizens are typically represented by a continuum however, the mere existence of citizenship does not ineluctably equate to equivalent representation across the board, often with glaring inconsistencies across akin geographic locations or historic periods, of which history is rife with causes. (Gans 2005). So why is citizenship so important? Citizenship is important because it gives everybody the geological formational rights.Nobody can take them away from a United States citizen, regardless of his policy-making views or statements. As United States citizens, we are entitlight-emitting diode to a set of rights, which is unique in the world. The United States Constitution entitles us to those rights and guarantees that we can enjoy them. The United States Constitution is the set of documents that embody the principles on which the United States is governed. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no other law, at any level of government, can be established without considering the rules and rights as set forth in that document.The part that is especially important to American as it relates directly to their rights is the part of the Constitution that is known as the banknote of Rights. The first ten amendments of the United States constitution are more comm barely referred to as the wit of Rights, because they define ad hoc rights that are granted to all United States citizens by the Constitution of the United States. The greenback of Rights is modeled on many other similar documents, all of which owe their inception to the Magna Carta, the bill of rights written in England in 1215 CE.The Bill of Rights is considered to be an important part of the Constitution, and is also an integral part of normal culture almost Americans, for example, know what someone means when he or she pleads the fifth, a reference to the Fifth Amendment, which protects people from self recrimination. (Smith 2003) The part of the Bill of Rights that is of concer n to this paper is its First Amendment. According to the First Amendment there are actually several rights guaranteed to all citizens equally. numerous people remember deuce of them, the right to free speech, and the right to a free press.There are very few exceptions to free speech and fee press. Writing or public speaking words that could be constituted as a threat to the American people or seriously threatening the invigoration of someone can definitely lead to a civil law suit or eve criminal prosecution. The right to free speech and free press fully includes any semi semipolitical presentions, regardless of what nature. So, if these rights are guaranteed to us, why do some people have concerns about political impartion? governmental Expression and limitations In wake of the 9/11 attack on United States a very controversial piece of legislation called The ground forces Patriot Act has been passed.The problem with this legislation lies in its definition of terrorist ac t or terrorist activities. The USA patriot Act section 802 defines domestic terrorist act so broadly that it could apply to an individual exercising his or her freedom of speech, fashion, and assembly through acts of civil disobedience. The Department of Justice has not revolutions per minuteealed how it is victimisation section 802 Moreover, Section 215 of the USA nationalist Act permits the FBI to seek records from bookstores and libraries of books that a person has purchased or read, or of his or her activities on a librarys computer.This transform puts people at risk for exercising their free speech rights to read, recommend, or discuss a book, to write an email, or to participate in a chat room, and thus could have the effect of chilling inherently protect speech. It also denies booksellers and library personnel the free speech right to pronounce anyone, including an attorney that the FBI has asked for someones reading list. (BORDC, 2008) Since and so the BORDC has d ocumented several cases where individual rights to free speech have been violated as a direct payoff of this legislature.Many of these violations have been triggered by political activity. For example In June 2004, Buffalo, New York, workman Steve Kurtz was detained by law enforcement and had his home searched by FBI agents. Despite finding only harmless substances, which Kurtz uses in his politically motivated art projects, the FBI proceeded with a distinguished Jury hearing to decide whether to indict Kurtz under the USA PATRIOT Acts biological agents provision. On June 29th, Kurtzs bio-terrorism related charges (USA PATRIOT Act section 817) were dropped. (BORDC, 2003)The above mentioned instance, along with similar mistakes have led many people to believe that our rights to free speech, including and especially the right to political preparation, have been limited by legislature such as and similar to the Patriot Act. Many however argue that such laws are infallible in ord er to protect the greater good and assist reduce the chances for renewed attacks on the United States. other example of limitation of political expression involves a very recent incident at the University of Berkeley in California.The City Council sent a letter to the United States Marines recruiting office stating that their recruiters were not wel do it in the city or on campus. This was just a letter of statement and it contained no threats or any other suggestions of violence, protests, or demonstrations. In return for this action, which was seen as very anti-patriotic by many politicians and citizens, mingled pressures were placed upon the city. Some lawmakers were threatening to withhold millions of dollars of federal and state financial backing to the school as retaliation.They claimed that since U. S. Marines are not good enough for Berkeley, then neither were taxpayers dollars After receiving significant heat, the officials decided to recognize the officials right to b e in Berkeley and clarified their position saying they support US troop just not the war and the recruitment of young people. (Hill, 2008) The problem that we show here is that a political view of a cities population, as reflected in the council letter, was oppressed through threats of funding elimination.Even though the political view reflected in the letter is not popular and inappropriate, that was barely an exercise of free political speech that was suppressed by threats. The fact that this happened on a college campus, which should urge learning through open debate, makes it especially bad as it sends a statement that everybody should be politically in line with the main stream. in dealing with college campuses (as the cultivating grounds for those of the future) we should be more visualizeing when sentiments show up and give them room to thrive if they wish.Suppression, such as financial deprivation, is no way to deal with a situation and absolutely no way to stifle a con flict. (Hill, 2008). This opens the question about why political expression matters and what is so special about it? Political Expression and Democracy In order to understand the impact of free speech on a parliamentary society we have to analyze the basics of democracy. license of speech and expression, especially about political and other public issues, is the lifeblood of any democracy.Democratic governments do not control the meat of most written and verbal speech. then democracies are usually filled with many voices expressing different or even contrary ideas and opinions. (U. S. Department of State, 2008) This statement is a very effective outline in reference to importance of free speech. As a democratic government, our leadership is supposed to lead is in direction that we chose. This choosing of direction is most often done through political debates as we see them on TV.Democracy depends upon a literate, knowledgeable citizenry whose access to information enables it to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society and to criticize unwise or tyrannical government officials or policies. Citizens and their elected representatives recognize that democracy depends upon the widest possible access to uncensored ideas, data, and opinions For a free people to govern themselves, they must be free to express themselves &8212 openly, publicly, and repeatedly in speech and in writing. (U. S. Department of State, 2008)What we have to understand is the fact that free flow of ideas through speech and other forms of parley is essential for the survival of a democratic government and as such, it cannot be compromised in any way. Free speech creates a pool of ideas that allow us to come to the bottom of every issue at sacrifice by finding the truth. At the same time, we cannot afford to misunderstand this concept. Many people in history have favored freedom of speech, notwithstanding only the kind of speech that they mark offd with. Th is is why we had to deal with people like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam.Their view of freedom of speech, especially when it came to politics, was definitely a one-way street. By using them as an example, we need to make sure that we emphasis on allowing all views to be expressed, regardless whether we agree with them. In my opinion, in this country, we cannot afford to place any limitations on freedom of political speech. Another issue that is directly related to the freedom of speech is freedom of belief. If the government or any other institution attempts to limit our freedom of political expression, then at the same time, they are prohibiting us from having the freedom to believe what we want.The concept is very simple. If we cannot freely express our ideas, then we should not have them in a first place. Many countries across the world had such a system in place. Saddams Iraq, Stalins Soviet Union and others. The reason these governments were called totalitarian was the fact that t heir citizens could not freely express their ideas and political views. This proves the fact that freedom of political expression is what makes us a strong democracy and that it should not be compromised. Many supporters of limited free speech cite various examples where it was necessary to limit political expression in order to achieve a greater good.One such example is Germany and many argue that by prohibiting political parties and any association with them (Nazi Party) was the right thing after World War II. I fully agree with that. However, when we cannot compare Germany and the United States (at least not back at that time). German people back then did not know the concept of democracy. Ones it was introduced they genuine it and Nazis never resurfaced again. In any case, my point is that in order to help nations such as post world war II Germany slay the right conclusion and adopt democracy some drastic measures may be necessary.However, these measures should never be under taken on our soil. We have a hale democracy and any limitations would disturb the balance. Even though it should never be compromised, freedom of speech has some limitations. One of the limitations that is relevant to political expression is the use of fight words. The fact is that he inflammatory nature of some speeches can cause the listener to direct violence at the speaker or other target groups as defined by the speaker. Additionally, fighting words have become limited to speech directed to one person and not to speech directed generally at a crowd.The idea is that if a speech is going to cause harm to somebody or limit him or her in enjoyment of his or her constitutional rights in any way, then it is prohibited. Another major issue that has come out of this is the fact that many state universities prohibit speeches that are fetid to minorities. Universities have adopted those policies in order to respond to complaints of those who are subjects of unlovable speeches. Thats the wrong response, well-meaning or not. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content.Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities add to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academician freedom is bedrock of education in a free society. (ACLU, 2008) This is a very important issue that demonstrates how political views, questionable as they are, can be legally expressed everywhere, without government intercedence. Conclusion Free speech and expression of political ideas are the very basis of a democratic system.As a fundamental feature of a democratic society, freedom of speech as it relates to politics is subject to only few, clearly defined restrictions. I believe that democracy demands that also those who have undemocratic views must be allowed to propagate for their ideas. A democratic state may only interfere with the right to express a political opinion if it can prove that the direct result of their speech would be violence and harm to somebody. Freedom of expression is a prerequisite for democracy and therefore without freedom of expression, there can be no democracy.This is why it continues to be important to hurry healthy debates on this issue and help people understand why it is important to respect opinion of others, even if it is not in consistency with the mainstream. That is the best way to continue our rich democratic tradition and mark that future generations can enjoy the same rights as we do. List of References Walker, Melissa. (2002) unbalanced Freedom How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor rev by Evelyn Nakano Glenn. selective information retrieved on April 28th, 2008 from Website http//www.h-net. org/reviews/showrev. cgi? path=112431032792905 Gans, Judith. (2005). Citizenship in the Context of Globalization. Ud all amount for Studies in Public Policy. Information retrieved on April 28th, 2008 from the Center Website http//udallcenter. arizona. edu/programs/immigration/publications/Citizenship%20and%20Globalization. pdf Smith, E. S. (2003). What is The Bill of Rights Information retrieved on April 28, 2008 from Website http//www. wisegeek. com/what-is-the-bill-of-rights. htm? Bill of Rights Defense Committee. (2008).Current Treats to Freedom of Speech, Religion, and Assembly. Information retrieved on April 28, 2008 from Website http//www. bordc. org/threats/speech. php Hill, Kimberley. (2008). Threats against the Free Speech? The Campus World Information retrieved on April 28, 2008 from Campus World Website http//www. thecampusword. com/content/view/2264/593/ American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU. (1994) Hate Speech on Campus. Information retrieved on April 28, 2008 from Website http//www. aclu. org/studentsrights/expression/12808pub19941231. html