Constitutional Law for a Changing America - Essay Example

Constitutional law Question l a In my opinion, based on the constant disruption tea partiers cause in congressional office buildings and capitol, it is unlawful for any individual within a hundred feet of any congressional office building in addition to the Capital Building to advance a representative within eight feet to pass any kind of pamphlet. This is based on probable difference in views between the Capital Building representative and the elected representative. In addition, restrictions are stipulated in regards to matters of security and safety. Moreover, it is unlawful for any person to wave a sign to or engage in oral protest during congressional hearing without consent from the chairperson. The probability of preparing laws to protect American citizens will be limited if the Elected Officials safety is not provided in the constitution. In essence, enforcement of laws such as those of prior censorship or prior restraint to protect citizens is bestowed on the Elected Officials. Similarly, absence of such laws will result into subjects approaching their representative and present their perception over certain issues. Thus, laws such as prior censorship or prior restraints have been stipulated to ensure publishers to remain accountable for any publications or communication. Restriction of hearing and distribution of censored material is provided under the prior restraint. However, some regions such as Argentina and U. S impose sanctions after communication of this material. Different cases have been used to affirm this position of the law (Thomas and dale 1). They include Near Vs Minnesota (1931) Near was convicted for publishing a malicious, disreputable, and defamatory article against Charles G. Davis, a special law enforcement officer. As a result, the defendant was banned from publishing any kind of newspaper. Though the statute to suppress public nuisance of periodicals and newspaper is essential it raises questions of grave significance that transcends local interest s entailed in any particular action. Nevertheless, the ruling was based on the unusual and illegitimate manner the defendant sought to execute his desire. Further, more exposition is brought out through the 1971 New York Times Co. V. United States case. In this case, a court injunction was given to prevent publication of an article rather document that would endanger the nation’s security (Thomas and dale 1). I believe the prior restraint was valid since the first amendment was absolute. Similarly, the 1993 case Hill v. Colorado affirms the restriction of publication or passing of pamphlets to state officials. Restriction of protests around abortion clinics resulted into the 100-foot radius buffer zone. In my opinion, this legislation works in protection of the state officials. Therefore, I believe it is worth concluding that it is unlawful for any individual to hand any form of publication or publish any information that endangers the safety of a nation of state officials (Epstein 45). Question 2 I believe the students are free to hold their ceremony at the school’s graduation square as planned. Concerning Lee v. Weismen court case, the students club had prior knowledge on their rights thus their meetings in a room to use facilities after school was justified. The ruling approved clergies to lead prayers during graduation. As a result, subtle religious coercion emerged due to violation of the Establishment clause. I think acknowledgement of the presence of a supreme is essential thus; their desire to hold a separate graduation is justifiable. In my opinion, the option of not attending the graduation ceremony excuses any coercion or inducement in the ceremony itself is discarded. In the current society, high school graduation is a significant occasion; therefore, no student is free to absent himself or herself from the exercise in any real sense of the term "voluntary." In addition, not dispositive is the disputation that prayers are an essential part of these ceremonies because for many people the occasion would lack meaning without the acknowledgement that human achievements cannot be comprehended apart from their spiritual perspective. I believe this position fails to recognize that what for many was a spiritual necessity was for the Weismans religious conformance compelled by the State. Based on the above argument, it is important for the students to progress with their plans to attend another graduation after the normal one. I think the graduation established on religious basis will allow advocate for freedom of worship unlike the infringement condoned by the Religious Establishment. It is therefore inherent to respect religious nature of our society and provide for incorporation of the public services (Epstein 61). Question 3 The right to privacy is advocated in the constitution of United States. Included is the women’s privacy to have abortion as a matter of reproductive choice. Thus, right to privacy has been viewed as a fundamental right based on the traditional due process clause. Limitations of these right required overcoming of the “strict scrutiny” test (Becky 251). However, I believe the case has changed in regards to evolution of the case law to undue burden test. The case presents a new balance between the states interest in safeguarding life and a woman’s right to choose. A post-Casey court ruling raises chances of denying women rights to abort pre-viability, but may standardize the procedures in cases where undue interference is not posed. An evaluation of court cases between 1992 and 2000 shows that the court employed undue burden test to six kind of state abortions in which two were declared unconstitutional. An evaluation of the 1973 Roe v. Wade court ruling, it is evident that Roe’s core values of safeguarding a woman’ health and right to choose dominated the court settings. The Court ruled that a woman has the right to have an abortion without interference from the government in the first trimester of pregnancy, contending that it is part of her “right to privacy.” The Court claimed that right to privacy is not absolute, however, and contracted states the right to intercede in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy Nevertheless, a shift to 5 to 4 majority has resulted into the 2007 federal abortion Ban (Becky 265). This has been attributed to the 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart, which legitimized Federal abortion Ban. Therefore, I perceive the future of privacy protection as an open question since less inclination is made towards privacy protection beyond Bill of rights stipulations. Question 4 In my opinion as a judge at the U.S Supreme Court, I advocate for similar review of transgender discrimination that is applicable to gender and race discrimination. This is because all members forming LGBT have equal chances of participating in civil society activities. In regards to their basic rights and liberties, they should not be discriminated against in places of housing, public places, and employment similarly they should not be suppressed of their privacy rights or free expression. New laws should be sought at federal level and in states in effort to strengthen the existing nondiscrimination laws. Another area that I propose to be amended in safeguarding the well-being of transgendered people includes parenting (“Know your rights” 1.) There is need to fight against restriction I parenting which results into harm to the lives of transgendered individuals and the entire LGBT group. Cohesive existence of the transgendered people will be achieved through changing of practice or laws that interfere in visitation and custody between GBLT parents and their children. Similarly, the transgendered individuals should be granted an opportunity to establish kinds of personal and intimate relationships that are more meaningful without fear of their families being harmed or disregarded. Unlike the discrimination Weather experience at school, I propose establishment of a bias free and safe institutions as exemplified in the University of Wisconsin v. Southworth. All people should receive adequate education regardless of their sexual orientation and gender identity. This is exemplified in the Hurley v. Irish-American gay, Lesbian, and bisexual group of Boston. Moreover, the government should grant the transgendered individuals with identity documents. In addition, they should be enlightened on emerging legal rights to foster integration in the society (“know your rights” 1.) Question 5 The court has applied inconsistent standards to civil rights. This include implicitly modifying the applicable standards for specific rights such as freedom of speech, assembly, and press; the right to vote; right to equality in public places; and freedom from involuntary servitude. The court has from time to time denied or rather interfered with the individuals’ civil rights due to discriminating measures leveled against them for belonging in a particular class or group. Despite the achievements that have realized through the enactment of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth U.S amendments, several cases testifies the inconsistence of the judicial system inconsistence in upholding to civil rights. To begin with, evaluation of the cases involving Mary Weather a transgendered student at Bayport University against the university’s administration, it is evident that the court failed to uphold the Weather’s right of equality in public places. Despite the students’ constant mistreatment by the staff and the other university administrators, the court ruled in favor of the university. Similarly, inconsistence in the court ruling has been exemplified in cases such as Near verses Minnesota, New York Times verses United States, and Hill verses Colorado. In regards to these cases, individuals are denied freedom of press due to their association with a particular class or group. In cases of Near verses Minnesota, the ruling to burn Near from publishing any kind of newspaper infringes on the defendants freedom of press. The court injunction against publication of information that would endanger the countries security counters legislation of civil rights. This is based on the absolute nature of the first amendment. The amendment of restriction against passing or publication of pamphlets to state official in public places or during conferences discriminate individuals. This restriction encourages inequality in public places and infringes on freedom of speech. Such inconsistence is signified by case Hill verse Colorado. The buffer zone established by 100-foot demarcation excludes American citizens involved in public conferences. The legislation was established in favor of the state officials. Another exposition is legitimatization of involvement of clergies in high school graduation ceremonies. Approval of the clergy to participate in these occasions contravenes the civil rights to public equality. In the case Lee verses Weismans, the court inconsistently allows involvement of the private services in the religious opinions of individuals. Works Cited Beck, randy. Gonzales, Casey, and the Vulnerability. Northwestern University Law Review. 103, 1 (2009): 249-279. Epstein, Lee. Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. QC Press, 2009. Print. Know your Rights-transgender People and the Law. American Civil Liberties Union. 19 November, 2009. Web. 14 December, 2011. Thomas L. Tedford and Dale A. Herbeck. Freedom of Speech in the United States, 6th ed. State College, PA: Strata Publishing, Inc., 2009 www.bc.edu/free_speech Read More