Policy on Tattoos for Civil Servants - Assignment Example

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States guarantees all citizens of the United States citizenship rights and equal protection of their rights (Engdahl, 2009). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, all citizens of the United States should enjoy their rights without anyone or any organization infringing on these rights. If a policy is put in place to control whether civil servants should have tattoos or how and when they should have tattoos, the policy will be infringing on their rights. This is a right that is enjoyed by all citizens in the United States and excluding a group of citizens from this right based on their status as civil servants will be tantamount to preventing them from enjoying this right as other citizens (Engdahl, 2009).

Tattoos are put on the body parts of individual persons. These tattoos do not in any way endanger the lives of the persons who choose to put them in their bodies. As such, they cannot be considered illegal unless in circumstances where the tattoos are meant to disturb public peace by wrongfully targeting other people or when they promote unwanted issues such as racism. The policies on the code of conduct for civil servants address issues such as the mode of dressing. Such a policy covers how civil servants should dress and behave in public offices.

Such policies are enough because they cover issues such as how much privacy civil servants should display when in office. The above reasons show why a policy on tattoos for any civil servant should not be in place. Such policies will infringe on the rights of civil servants as American citizens. Secondly, the policies will treat civil servants as if they are second-degree citizens. If such a policy were to be implemented, then it should apply to all citizens. Comment on thread: The fact that the First Amendment does not provide absolute rights for public employees, it does not provide absolute rights for other citizens, and putting tattoos is not an absolute right but privacy right for all citizens.2. Summary of the First, Fourth, or Fourteenth Amendment issues for the following cases Ortega v.

Connor (1987)In the above case, the fourth amendment was applicable because it was a case of unreasonable search and seizure protected by the amendment (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). The main issue was officials at a hospital suspected improprieties in Dr. Ortega’s management of a residency program and conducted multiple searches of his office and seized a number of items. Ortega suit for unlawful search and seizure. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ortega stating that public employees had rights under the Fourth Amendment.

Cleveland Board of Ed. v. LaFleur (1974)The Fourteenth Amendment applies in this case because it was about violation of the Due Process Clause covered by the Amendment. The main issue was a challenge of the constitutionality of mandatory maternity leave rules in Cleveland, Ohio (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2011). The court ruled that the mandatory maternity leave rules violated the Due process Clauses of the 14th Amendment arguing that it undermined the freedom of personal choice in marriage and family issues. U. S.

v Paradise (1987)The 14th Amendment was applicable in this case because the case was about discrimination. The main issue is that the Alabama Department of Public Safety had discriminated against African Americans from employment (Riccucci, 2007). The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff arguing that the Alabama Department of Public Safety’s conduct had violated citizenship rights and equal protection of the laws provided for under the 14th Amendment. Altman v Minnesota Department of Corrections (2001)The first Amendment was applicable in this case because it dealt with issues of violation of religious rights.

The main issue in the case is that prison guards sued for being denied promotions based on their religious beliefs (Walsh, 2006). The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Minnesota Department of Corrections arguing that the burden on the guards’ religion was attending the training, which to the court was significant.