The Central Motive for Creating the US Constitution - Essay Example

Constitutional Freedoms in the Law Enforcement Workplace Introduction The central motive for creating the US constitution was to support a government, which will hold enough capability of managing both international and economic issues in the US. Surprisingly, the initial motive of creating the US constitution was not to empower the legislative system of the nation but to guarantee the human rights of the citizens. In fact, professional law enforcement systems, particularly the police department were established in the US almost after fifty decades since the ratification of the constitution1. This also rules the supposition that constitutional freedoms of law enforcement officials may reside in conflict with their job roles and responsibilities at times undermining or overpowering each other. Accordingly, framers of the US constitution comprehended that dividing powers, both vertically and horizontally, would help in safeguarding individual liberty within the nation, which were further used to frame the job roles and responsibilities in the law enforcement workplace. This republican theory helped in ensuring that individual rights were safeguarded from each and every type of government abuse, but lacked in ensuring or guaranteeing the same for officials or public employees working in the law enforcement workplace. This particular supposition undoubtedly raises many questions on the US constitutional feature to articulate the fundamental commitments for US citizens, including ‘democracy’, ‘liberty’ and ‘equality’ as its basic principles to meet both individual and national security requirements2. As can apparently be observed, the degree of confusion and debates eyeing the constitutional freedoms applicable in the law enforcement workplace demands a rigorous analysis of the context, elaborating on the limits imposed by constitutional freedoms and on circumstances when job responsibilities in the mentioned working environment overpowers individual constitutional freedom. This particular notion will form the base for the discussion undertaken in this study. Defining Constitutional Freedoms in Workplace Defining constitutional freedom can be referred as both simple and complex. On a simple note, constitutional rights refer to the freedoms guaranteed by the constitution of the country to its citizens. To be precise, it intends to protect them from potential but unreasonable harm from the operations of the constitution for a greater interest, i.e. to ensure national security at every dimension of the community. On the broader context, these freedoms encompass political, civil as well as personal rights entitled to a legal citizen of a country according to its constitution, which are further intended to protect the individuals from invasion by the government, its agencies or through the law enforcement bodies3. Accordingly, the US Constitution summarises the structure of the federal government wherein several amendments have been made inclusive to protect the human rights of its citizens. The constitution introduced its bill of rights, which provided individual liberties and helped in framing the government structure4. As it can be observed, constitutional rights are enforced or included in the legislative norms of a country to protect the personal, political as well as civil interests of the citizens, irrespective of the workplace configurations or job related classifications. That is, if freedom of religion or speech is entitled for the senior executive in a workplace, it is equally applicable for the clerk or the housekeeper in the same way, based on their identification as a legal US citizen. Nevertheless, job roles and responsibilities, as bestowed on individuals owing to their professional identities, have often been observed to come into conflict with their constitutional freedoms. Such issues have been much prominent in the practices of law enforcement agencies, ranging from police departments to military departments, even including law professionals acting in the legislative bodies of the country. Being the protectors of constitutional freedoms themselves, law enforcement bodies face the challenge to balance their own rights to the same and maintain parity in their professional ethics code and their religious, civil or personal identity5. It is in this context that constitutional freedoms in workplaces, especially law enforcement workplaces differ substantially from those practiced in other public or private sectors. For instance, right to religious freedom or freedom of religion, as per the first amendment of the bill of rights, aims to protect the religious identity of people in two ways, wherein it has established certain restrictions for Congress to create a national religion, offering respect to religious diversity prohibiting possible chances of politicising the same. Correspondingly, it also restricted the Congress to pass any kind of law that obstructed the freedom of US citizens to practice the religion they believe in. This particular amendment helped in separating Churches from being politically involved in the state affairs, abolishing the trend when Churches and similarly other religious institutions used to administer the rights of the people, politicising religious identification of common public. However, as the time passed, a revolution was induced in the nation, encouraging religious tolerance among people in its various states, which ultimately provided freedom of religion to the US citizens6. Freedom of religion not only provides the right to hold diverse religious beliefs, but also provides the right to express their religious beliefs. Therefore, religious beliefs may be regarded as universally public in the US, which has been protected by the US constitution. Presently, religion and its belief plays a prominent role in the US wherein religious monuments, such as Churches, Temples and Mosques are clearly evident in the public sphere, guaranteeing the right to the people for displaying religious signs and building religious societies protected by the statutes of the US constitution. In addition, this particular amendment has also provided the right to the people, to spread their religious messages. In the US, it has been witnessed that religious books and newspapers are published freely by the postal system in the nation. It is believed that no other developed nation have promoted freedom of religion in the public sphere as compared to the US wherein religious symbols are visible from the public pathway, protected by the constitution. Such practices, in turn, have played a significant role in reducing the extent of religious discrimination in workplaces to a substantial extent. On a brighter side, freedom of religion has increased the involvement of citizens from diverse culture in religious activities maintaining diversity and peace within the society7. Similarly, freedom of speech & press form another constitutional freedom that protects the right of individuals to freely express their point of view. Freedom of speech is a right through which, individuals are given the right of expression wherein they can use internet media, sculptures, music, and religious symbols to express their viewpoint for or against anything related to their belief, irrespective of it being religious or non-religious. Likewise, freedom of speech is generally provided to newspaper publishers, television networks and radio stations in which opinions that represent the public speech can be expressed freely without any government intervention8. At a broader context, the constitutional freedom of speech and press has influenced workplaces wherein employees are given the right to express their viewpoints regarding any issue related with their job roles and responsibilities. Nowadays, employees are provided with the opportunity to get involved in the decision making process of an organisation. However, there has been a huge gap between the rights of employees and their capacity to express in an organisation, attracting attentions from the critics. This is particularly owing to the fact that freedom of expression and speech for the employees are often restricted, as it is based upon their position within the organisation. In addition, freedom of speech and press has contributed towards changing the organisational cultures being followed by individuals in their workplace, which in turn has helped in protecting their fundamental rights9. Based on this understanding, it can be observed that apart from maintaining confidentiality in the workplace environment, this particular constitutional freedom is unlikely to ignite a conflict amid the law enforcement paradigm. On the other hand, the scenario may be slightly different in the case of constitutional freedom of petition and assemble. This constitutional right tends to protect the interests of the people to assemble and appeal the government for redressing particular issues without the fear of getting punished or imprisoned, forming the base of a democratic nation. The freedom to petition protects the right of people to rally and publish certain articles for communicating a message to the government bodies. It is conceived that this freedom played a huge role in the historical context of the US wherein during the phase of civil rights movement, US citizens were provided with the rights to assemble peacefully and protest against the government policies, demanding active and unbiased involvement from the law enforcement bodies in the country10. Certainly, the constitutional freedom of petition and assemble is exercised in numerous workplaces across the US wherein employees or the workers are provided with the right to form a labour union and appeal against the organisational policies that affect their constitutional freedom and interests either directly or indirectly11. It is noteworthy in this context that while the law enforcement professionals, such as the police department recruits are categorised as liable for all employment benefits entitled to any other workplace in the US, imposition of permitted unions, even though under strict observation of the government, has drawn many criticisms on its requirement in the sector to maintain legitimacy12. The aforementioned freedoms provide an understanding about the first amendment in the bill of rights as included in the US constitution. In the later phase, there were other amendments as well, made in the US constitution, wherein the Second Amendment included right to bear arms, which certainly has its non-negligible implications on the police departments and military units to fight against criminal activities. Moreover, this right also safeguards the US citizens to defend against life threats. The Third Amendment is concerned with right to privacy, which again is linked with privacy in the workplace of individuals and is deemed as universal having its applicability in law enforcement workplaces too. Accordingly, the Fourth Amendment is regarding the right of the US citizens against ‘unreasonable searches and seizure’, which implies on the work practices of police departments wherein they cannot search the personal property of individuals without a valid reason often raising conflicts between the bestowed job responsibilities and ethical boundaries. The Fifth Amendment and Sixth Amendment safeguards the rights of those individuals who have been accused of criminal activities, which influences the workplace of jurisdiction departments in the US quite strongly. For instance, this right mandates jurisdiction departments to assess the evidences put forward against the accused before his/her conviction. It is in this context that the Seventh Amendment safeguards the right of an individual to avail a jury trial to ensure that the accused are treated lawfully. The Eighth Amendment accordingly safeguards the rights of an individual against imposition of excessive fines or cruel penalties. This again levies significant implications on prisoners and their officers as they cannot inflict undue fines or penalties on an individual during their imprisonment13. Implications of Constitutional Freedoms in Law Enforcement Workplace The constitutional freedoms have a huge implication on each and every paradigm of a society, involving law enforcement workplaces among the foremost and primary. However, as argued earlier, rights proscribed under constitutional freedoms may not be applicable for the public employees in the similar manner as in the case of common people. To prove the instance, a very recent case can be referred, which took place in the police department of Washington D.C., wherein rights have been provided to the departmental staffs to wear head scarves instead of their mandatory police caps within the station, which on one hand can be observed as a gesture to pay respect to the constitutional right to religion held by the police officers as legal citizens to the constitution, while on the other hand may also been observed as a breach to their workplace job roles. Notably, there have been many instances where police officers and other personnel in law enforcement workplaces have been forced to choose either professional dignity of religious beliefs, which argue against the uniformity of the constitutional freedoms in the government or law enforcement workplaces. Illustratively, in the case of Zell v. Donley (2010), it was further observed that the freedom of religion held by public employees has been violated, as the U.S. Air Force terminated a chiropractor for refusing to take a vaccination guided by certain religious beliefs, as the vaccination was deemed mandatory to all professionals in the workplace 14. Similarly, freedom of speech and press offered to the public employees in the law enforcement workplace can be observed as uniform for both private citizens and law enforcement officials where individuals are certainly offered with the right to communicate about any particular concern that they deem to violate their constitutional freedoms but apparently not at the cost of professional confidentiality committed to the department15. Accordingly, freedom of petition and assemble, safeguards the right of an individual to file a petition or assemble together in a particular place, so as to resolve certain issues. In relation to the implications of this right, it can be witnessed that International Labour Organizations (ILOs) have developed a framework, in which it has been stated that workers have the right to assemble and bargain cooperatively for resolving the issue faced by them. Officials of law enforcement in the US also have the authority of using military force if in case there is a threat being posed to the safety of assembled individuals16. From a broader perspective, right to bear arms fall under the second amendment of the US constitution wherein US citizens have the right to carry a licensed gun for self-defence. However, the right has been violated by both private citizens and police officers, as misuse of arms have been continuously reported. Accordingly, the constitutional freedom of right to privacy creates an obligation for law enforcement agencies in the US to provide information to the individuals, wherein they have the right to information, while contradictorily, it also creates an obligation for the police departments to withhold certain information that might jeopardise constitutional programs, plans or ignite privacy issues within legislative bodies. Therefore, it can be asserted that right to safety influences the work practices of police departments in the US to a substantial extent, in relation to maintaining the confidentiality of certain information17. It has often been argued in this context that police officers or law enforcing agencies are not provided with adequate privacy rights as compared to the private citizens particularly because they have a different responsibility and duty towards their nation, which limits their privacy rights18. The Fourth Amendment in the US constitution protects the right of an individual against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to this right, US courts take decisions pertaining to seizures and searches wherein police officers must have an appropriate reason for searching the personal property of an individual or an organisation. This particular right administers the searches made by government employees such as police officers in which the evidence obtained from warrantless search is likely to be repressed. Contextually, it can be argued that the workplace of law enforcement agencies is influenced with regards to this particular right, as these agencies do not have the right to conduct a warrantless search without a valid reason19. Likewise, in the workplace environment, police officers also enjoy the same rights of unreasonable searches and seizures. However, their right is often limited because of the strict policies taken by the department when investigating any case involving accusations against the police officers. It can accordingly be revealed that there is a different provision applied in cases involving misconduct for police officers under the Department of Justice (DOJ), which propagates that the constitutional freedom to searches and seizures are not equal in the case of police officers as in the case of common public. To be precise, in certain cases, involving police officers on charge of misconducts, it has been witnessed that departments have taken the very initial proceedings even before assessing the truthfulness of the authenticity of the allegations brought against the police officer(s). While initially it can be observed as a basic measure to preserve individual security within the community, at the individual scale, it can also be perceived as a violation of the freedom to unreasonable searches and seizures held by a police officer being a legal citizen to the country20. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments safeguard the right of suspects and their witnesses. According to this right, an individual cannot be forced to be a witness against himself. When considering the law enforcement workplace, it can further be observed that it is even mandatory in the case of public employees to provide the accused with a privilege against self-incrimination, which might be a police officer as well. In addition, this right implies that lawyers are required to testify the accused and accordingly draw evidence from the interaction process with the accused, which is also followed by DOJ in cases involving public employees as the accused party. This right also provides immunity to the witnesses in a case under a statutory provision that requires to be followed by courts. However, when considering protection of police officers who are acknowledged as the witnesses in particular cases, it can be observed that they seldom get benefitted by the same right, which again affects their constitutional freedoms in their workplaces21. The Seventh Amendment puts emphasis on right to jury trials for an individual in a particular criminal case. Accordingly, it is considered that this right is universal and it applies to each and every individual in the US irrespective of his/her profession, religion or gender, which apparently supports the uniformity of the constitutional freedom in law enforcement workplace. Illustratively, in a jury trial against Enoch Clark, who himself was a police officer, wherein he was accused for assaulting a women while arresting her, the personnel was also offered with similar freedom to register trails in defiance to his innocence22. Correspondingly, the Eighth Amendment protects an individual from excessive fines and cruel penalties according to the US constitution, which forms a crucial facet in the responsibilities of police officers and public employees, which also suffices a greater purpose with the belief that prison overcrowding may result in violating the fundamental rights of inmates, inhibiting their wellness and security too. For instance, California prison had been subjected to overcrowding of prisoners due to which inmates suffered continuously that ultimately resulted in many of their deaths. This in turn was supposed to have violated the Eighth Amendment. Consequently, more staff was recruited in the prison and the overall capacity of California prison was increased. On the other hand, with significance to the duties of the police officers, it can be argued as a restriction imposed on their profession, where in many cases they need to consider charging lesser fines and penalties to maintain a limited density in prisons, overlooking faults of the accused. It has been identified that if police officers violate the right against excessive fines and penalties than the officer is penalized with certain charges. However, the penalty is not excessive or cruel in case of police officers as they are protected under the Eight Amendment23. However, this particular policy has supposedly led the personnel to a conflict of interest within their professional arena, which may also been considered as a major influence caused by constitutional freedoms in law enforcement workplaces24. Critical Evaluation The bill of rights has witnessed numerous amendments in the US constitution, which has actually influenced the behavior of public, causing substantial influences on the law enforcing workplace. Contextually, it is quite important to assess whether the rights formulated by the US constitution are actually practiced in the law enforcing workplace. This is particularly owing to the fact that through this assessment, the actual applicability of the rights within the law enforcement workplace can be understood. Applying a critical viewpoint to the factor, it can be observed that a thin difference persists amid the constitutional freedoms, wherein those can be segregated as either universal or restricted to a certain extent. For instance, freedom of religion can be categorised as a universal right, wherein government officials must take up certain actions that will validate its universality. It is accordingly considered that the freedom of religion must be used appropriately by the government bodies and employees to ensure that religious discrimination does not take place in their workplace, which might prohibit an individual to practice their religion. This further suffices the ideology that social identity holds maximum significance in case of universal freedoms as compared to other conditional freedoms such as right to bear arms, and in such circumstances, professional identities are termed secondary, making public employees also equality eligible to obtain the freedom. It is in this regard that the US Supreme Court has also held, individuals must be provided with freedom of religious, speech and expression, as it is quite important to safeguard their rights from infringement by other powerful citizens or entities. Unfortunately, it has been witnessed that religious discrimination is allegedly being carried by numerous government employees, which forbids the rights of religious speech and expression with law enforcement workplaces. For instance, Antoine Chambers who was a police officer faced religious discrimination in his department wherein his role was transferred from a uniformed police officer to a desk duty, as he did not agree to his officers for removing his dreadlocks owing to his religious beliefs. However, he was allegedly forced by his supervisors to cut his dreadlocks to suffice the requirement of having a uniform dress code. Finally, a lawsuit was filed against the department by Chambers, which was followed by the court that penalising an officer for his religious beliefs is unlawful25. It is often perceived that law enforcement bodies in the US play an important role in protecting the people along with inducing peace and stability within the society and thus, operate on behalf of governmental bodies making them fall on the other side rather than on the recipients’ side of obtaining constitutional freedoms. However, in real life scenario, it has often been witnessed that the police departments are more concerned about enforcing the laws framed by the government and making arrests of people violating the laws. This in turn has increased the possibility that the rights or flexibility offered to the police officers as enforcers or guarantors of the rights to the civilians may be misused for personal benefits. To be illustratively noted in this regard, it can be observed that almost 1,000 people are projected to be killed every year by policemen. Accordingly, estimations reveal that almost 5,000 people in the US have been killed by policemen since the incident of 9/11 in order to reduce the extent of criminal activities in the nation, which equals to the number of soldiers killed in Iraq during their duty. Critics from around the world have accordingly argued that police harassment and brutality has been a controversial issue in the US over the past few years. Police misconducts have also been reported by numerous victims, which again has jeopardised the right of law enforcement officers to bear arms, as laid down by the US constitution. It can therefore be argued that certain rules must be formulated by the US constitution that will penalise the police officers for engaging in brutal activities instead of merely suspending them26. Right to privacy is one of the most essential fundamental rights, which attempts to safeguard an individual in terms of his/her personal identity interests maintaining privacy. However, the right to privacy differs for police officers and law enforcing workers as compared to ordinary US citizens wherein police officers are often observed as entitled or permitted with minimum privacy while performing their duty. The US government has accordingly used different approaches for maintaining privacy among police officers, which is precisely referred as the ‘reasonable expectation of privacy’. It is accordingly considered that this approach has helped in balancing the privacy rights of law enforcement agencies, police officers and private US citizens. In this regard, courts in the US also consider that police officers must have a lesser expectation for privacy as compared to private citizens in the nation, which apparently indicates their segregation from the common public on the basis of their obtainable constitutional freedoms. In justification to the statement, it has been implied by the US courts that police officers cannot actually expect privacy while performing their duty as the extent of public awareness has increased in the US, who perceive that police officers require being monitored to ensure that their powers are used appropriately and purposefully. However, police officers have the right to conceal sensitive or confidential information considering the fact that if such information is publicised, there is a huge possibility that a false rumour might get spread, inducing insecurity in the nation. Thus, it can be asserted that constitutional freedoms, at often instances are applied uniquely in law enforcement workplaces to ensure the greater goal of national sovereignty and social security27. The Fourth Amendment of right against unreasonable searches and seizures also has substantial implications on the police officers, which provides an understanding about how this right has been exercised by the law enforcing bodies. To be mentioned in this context, the US Supreme Court, since the past few years has limited the usage of this right against police officers. These limitations entail on the grounds that if the police officers engage in illicit search and seizure practices, they might be held criminally actionable, wherein officers might get accused of conducting unlawful practices. However, there are fewer examples wherein the police officers are accused of unlawful practices to mandate requisite restrictive actions. This provides an understanding that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is biased in nature, which may at times, favour the unlawful practices undertaken by police officers. Thus, it is evident that the unlawful actions of police officers are backed by judicial bodies in the nation, which creates a scope of power abuse among police officers28. Conclusion The US today, stands as a major global power having non-negligible influence on the international laws enforced in relation to inter-country trade, human right laws and even political warfares, as and when deemed necessary or requested. Such a position evidently proclaims the example that the nation has set in front of the world to maintain peace, sovereignty and uniformity not only within the nation, but also amid the international environment. A critical understanding to the phenomenon reveals that the contribution of the US Constitution has acted as a backbone of the economy to strengthen its global positioning in an exemplary manner. Nevertheless, critics have been arguing on the legitimacy or rather appropriateness of the constitution to be uniform and unbiased in every dimension of the society, which today holds the position of one of the most advanced demographics in the world. Cases like Mapp v. Ohio, Bell v. Hood and Miranda v. Arizona indicate that constitutional freedoms in the US are specifically intended towards protecting public from possible harm to their human rights, and should be applicable irrespective of one’s professional identification. Based on this notion, similar cases have advocated strict policies against any infringement to constitutional freedoms of public conducted by the police officers or law enforcement officials29. On the other hand, scholars as well as jurists have claimed in support of police and other law enforcement officials emphasising the criticality and risks associated with the profession, demanding a degree of liberty for personnel in the law enforcement workplace30. Perhaps, such wide differences in the approaches taken by the jurisdiction of the US, following the national constitution is the consequence of flexible enforceability of few constitutional freedoms while strict mandates concerning others. This has at time undermined job responsibilities while at particular occurrences have also overpowered constitutional freedom as obtainable by personnel in law enforcement workplaces, causing confusions as what are or should be the constitutional rights of these professionals and why should they differ from that of common public. References ACS. (n.d.). The constitution’s vision and values. Keeping faith with the constitution, 7-22. American Center for Law and Justice. (2012). Religious expression in the workplace. Retrieved from http://aclj.org/workplace-rights/religious-expression-workplace ACLU. (2010). Freedom of religion. Retrieved from http://aclu-nca.org/topics/issues/freedom-of-religion ACLU. (n.d.). The ACLU and freedom of religion and belief. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/aclu-and-freedom-religion-and-belief#_edn2 Alameda County District Attorneys Office. (n.d.). Workplace searches. Retrieved from http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/WORKPLACE_SEARCHES.pdf Autonomous Nonprofit Organization. (2014). Mistrial for cop who blew up womans eye balls with pepper spray. Retrieved from http://rt.com/usa/160260-mistrial-cop-pepper-spray-blind/ Brauchli, C. (2011).The 8th Amendment meets the 5th Amendment. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christopher-brauchli/the-8th-amendment-meets-t_b_997053.html City of Los Angeles. (2014). California Public Records Act. Retrieved from http://www.lapdonline.org/i_want_to_know/content_basic_view/36329 Dammeier, D. C. (2012). Fading Privacy Rights of Public Employees. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 6, 297-312. Dellinger, W. E. (1972). Of Rights and Remedies: The constitution as a sword. Harvard Law Review, 85, pp. 1532-1564. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Addressing police misconduct laws enforced by the department of justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/polmis.php Department of Justice. (n.d.). Know your rights. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/usao/ne/press_releases/Civil%20Rights%20Book-NE-2.pdf Human Rights Education Associates. (n.d.). Freedom of assembly and association. Retrieved from http://www.hrea.org/index.php?base_id=146 Ingram, R. R. (1997). A clash of fundamental rights: Conflicts between the fifth and sixth amendments in criminal trials. Retrieved from http://legalbrief.com/ingram.html Justia. (n.d.). Alternatives to the exclusionary rule. Retrieved from http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-04/30-exclusionary-rule.html LII. (n.d.). U.S Constitution. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei Luo, M. & Mcintire, M. (2013). When the right to bear arms includes the mentally ill. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us/when-the-right-to-bear-arms-includes-the-mentally-ill.html?_r=0 Macklin, R. & Spurgin, E. W. (2005). Free speech in the workplace: findings and analysis of a qualitative research study. Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics, 1-11. Mishra, D. (2008). Undermining excessive privacy for police: citizen tape recording to check police officers power. The Yale Law Journal, 1549-1558. Robinson, B. (2014). Rastafarian officer fights for dreadlocks. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=96389 Roots, R. (2001). Are Cops Constitutional? Seton Hall Constitutional L.J., 685-723. Rucke, K. (2013). US Police Have Killed Over 5,000 Civilians Since 9/11. Retrieved from http://www.mintpressnews.com/us-police-murdered-5000-innocent-civilians-since-911/172029/ Sirolli, C. J. (n.d.). Bargaining units vs. management: are police unions necessary? Retrieved from http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Content/getdoc/2059f45f-5985-45b6-bb25-3ed1d2fb026c/sirolli-carmen-final-paper-%281%29.aspx Smith, B. A., Finney, C. P., Mayer, D. N., Owsiany, D. J., Langdon, D. R. & Thompson, M. A. (2011). Ohio workplace freedom amendment. Retrieved from http://www.ohioconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/OHIO-WORKPLACE-FREEDOM-AMENDMENT-FAQS.pdf Snider, D. M., Oh, P & Toner, K. (2009). The army’s professional military ethic in an era of persistent conflict. Professional Military Ethics Monograph Series, 10-31. UCSB Police Department. (2012). Freedom of expression. Retrieved from http://www.police.ucsb.edu/resources/freedom-expression US Legal, Inc. (2014). Constitutional freedom law & legal definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/constitutional-freedom/ Read More