Mediaboss Marketing

Navigate this Section

The need for the Constitution grew out of problems with the Articles of Confederation, which established a firm league of friendship between the States, and vested most power in a Congress of the Confederation. This power was, however, extremely limitedthe central government conducted diplomacy and made war, set weights and measures, and was the final arbiter of disputes between the States. Crucially, it could not raise any funds itself, and was entirely dependent on the States themselves for the money necessary to operate. Each State sent a delegation of between two and seven members to the Congress, and they voted as a bloc with each State getting one vote. But any decision of consequence required a unanimous vote, which led to a government that was paralyzed and ineffectual.

A movement to reform the Articles began, and invitations to attend a convention in Philadelphia to discuss changes to the Articles were sent to the State legislatures in 1787. In May of that year, delegates from 12 of the 13 States (Rhode Island sent no representatives) convened in Philadelphia to begin the work of redesigning government. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention quickly began work on drafting a new Constitution for the United States.

A chief aim of the Constitution as drafted by the Convention was to create a government with enough power to act on a national level, but without so much power that fundamental rights would be at risk. One way that this was accomplished was to separate the power of government into three branches, and then to include checks and balances on those powers to assure that no one branch of government gained supremacy. This concern arose largely out of the experience that the delegates had with the King of England and his powerful Parliament. The powers of each branch are enumerated in the Constitution, with powers not assigned to them reserved to the States.

Much of the debate, which was conducted in secret to ensure that delegates spoke their minds, focused on the form that the new legislature would take. Two plans competed to become the new government: the Virginia Plan, which apportioned representation based on the population of each State, and the New Jersey plan, which gave each State an equal vote in Congress. The Virginia Plan was supported by the larger States, and the New Jersey plan preferred by the smaller. In the end, they settled on the Great Compromise (sometimes called the Connecticut Compromise), in which the House of Representatives would represent the people as apportioned by population; the Senate would represent the States apportioned equally; and the President would be elected by the Electoral College. The plan also called for an independent judiciary.

The founders also took pains to establish the relationship between the States. States are required to give full faith and credit to the laws, records, contracts, and judicial proceedings of the other States, although Congress may regulate the manner in which the States share records, and define the scope of this clause. States are barred from discriminating against citizens of other States in any way, and cannot enact tariffs against one another. States must also extradite those accused of crimes to other States for trial.

The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times. In order to prevent arbitrary changes, the process for making amendments is quite onerous. An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification. In modern times, amendments have traditionally specified a time frame in which this must be accomplished, usually a period of several years. Additionally, the Constitution specifies that no amendment can deny a State equal representation in the Senate without that States consent.

With the details and language of the Constitution decided, the Convention got down to the work of actually setting the Constitution to paper. It is written in the hand of a delegate from Pennsylvania, Gouverneur Morris, whose job allowed him some reign over the actual punctuation of a few clauses in the Constitution. He is also credited with the famous preamble, quoted at the top of this page. On September 17, 1787, 39 of the 55 delegates signed the new document, with many of those who refused to sign objecting to the lack of a bill of rights. At least one delegate refused to sign because the Constitution codified and protected slavery and the slave trade.

The process set out in the Constitution for its ratification provided for much popular debate in the States. The Constitution would take effect once it had been ratified by nine of the thirteen State legislatures; unanimity was not required. During the debate over the Constitution, two factions emerged: the Federalists, who supported adoption, and the Anti-Federalists, who opposed it.

James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay set out an eloquent defense of the new Constitution in what came to be called the Federalist Papers. Published anonymously in the newspapers The Independent Journal and The New York Packet under the name Publius between October 1787 and August 1788, the 85 articles that comprise the Federalist Papers remain to this day an invaluable resource for understanding some of the framers intentions for the Constitution. The most famous of the articles are No. 10, which warns of the dangers of factions and advocates a large republic, and No. 51, which explains the structure of the Constitution, its checks and balances, and how it protects the rights of the people.

The States proceeded to begin ratification, with some debating more intensely than others. Delaware was the first State to ratify, on December 7, 1787. After New Hampshire became the ninth State to ratify, on June 22, 1788, the Confederation Congress established March 9, 1789 as the date to begin operating under the Constitution. By this time, all the States except North Carolina and Rhode Island had ratifiedthe Ocean State was the last to ratify on May 29, 1790.

One of the principal points of contention between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the lack of an enumeration of basic civil rights in the Constitution. Many Federalists argued, as in Federalist No. 84, that the people surrendered no rights in adopting the Constitution. In several States, however, the ratification debate in some States hinged on the adoption of a bill of rights. The solution was known as the Massachusetts Compromise, in which four States ratified the Constitution but at the same time sent recommendations for amendments to the Congress.

James Madison introduced 12 amendments to the First Congress in 1789. Ten of these would go on to become what we now consider to be the Bill of Rights. One was never passed, while another dealing with Congressional salaries was not ratified until 1992, when it became the 27th Amendment. Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the English Bill of Rights, the writings of the Enlightenment, and the rights defined in the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights contains rights that many today consider to be fundamental to America.

The First Amendment provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise. It protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms.

The Third Amendment prohibits the government from quartering troops in private homes, a major grievance during the American Revolution.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. The government may not conduct any searches without a warrant, and such warrants must be issued by a judge and based on probable cause.

The Fifth Amendment provides that citizens not be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment without due process. Citizens may not be tried on the same set of facts twice and are protected from self-incrimination (the right to remain silent). The amendment also establishes the power of eminent domain, ensuring that private property is not seized for public use without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment assures the right to a speedy trial by a jury of ones peers, to be informed of the crimes with which one is charged, and to confront the witnesses brought forward by the government. The amendment also provides the accused the right to compel testimony from witnesses, as well as the right to legal representation.

The Seventh Amendment provides that civil cases preserve the right to trial by jury.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment states that the list of rights enumerated in the Constitution is not exhaustive, and that the people retain all rights not enumerated.

The Tenth Amendment assigns all powers not delegated to the United States, or prohibited to the States, to either the States or to the people.

Learn more about the Constitution

Here is the original post:
The Constitution - The White House

A New York judge blocked the state's attorney general from trying to put the National Rifle Association out of business but will allow a lawsuit accusing top executives of misusing funds to proceed.

Manhattan Judge Joel M. Cohen expressed concerns that shutting down the NRA could infringe on the First Amendment rights of its millions of members. However, the lawsuit regarding allegedly misused funds can continue, but it does not warrant the "corporate death penalty" sought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, the Associated Press reported.

"The complaint does not allege that any financial misconduct benefited the NRA, or that the NRA exists primarily to carry out such activity, or that the NRA is incapable of continuing its legitimate activities on behalf of its millions of members," the judge wrote in his opinion.

In August 2020, James filed a lawsuit to shut down the NRA alleging three top executives and CEO Wayne LaPierre diverted tens of millions of dollars in funds to use for personal use, violating the charity law. The lawsuit alleges LaPierre used the nonprofit's money to fly on private jets, hire car services, pay for travel consultants and personal security, and that he spent more than $500,000 for several trips to the Bahamas with his family, the AP added.

The lawsuit alleges that LaPierre "exploited the organization for his financial benefit, and the benefit of a close circle of NRA staff, board members and vendors." The suit claims NRA senior executives "regularly ignored, overrode or otherwise violated the bylaws and internal policies and procedures that they were charged with enforcing" in order to divert assets, Vox reported.

The CEO is also accused of setting up a $17 million post-employment contract for himself and accepting luxury gifts from vendors including African safaris and a 107-foot yacht, according to the AP.

"The court let stand all of the Office of the Attorney General's claims of self-dealing, abuse, and unlawful conduct by LaPierre, who has been at the helm of the NRA for three decades," James' office said in a statement. "Today, the court affirmed my office's right to pursue its long-standing claims that fraud, abuse, and greed permeate through the NRA and its senior leadership."

The NRA initially denied the allegations of misspending, but the group filed a tax document with the IRS stating the organization "became aware during 2019 of a significant diversion of its assets." The document also showed LaPierre reimbursed the NRA for $300,000 in travel costs, Vox reported.

However, Wednesday's ruling means the New York Attorney General's Office cannot shut down the association or seize its assets.

"This is a resounding win for the NRA, its 5 million members, and all who believe in this organization," NRA President Charles Cotton said in a statement. "The message is loud and clear: The NRA is strong and secure in its mission to protect constitutional freedom."

In 2021, the NRA declared bankruptcy and reported between $100 million and $500 million in assets and the same amount in liabilities, according to the bankruptcy documents. The organization tried to move its state of incorporation to Texas from New York, but a Texas judge blocked the move, saying the bankruptcy was not filed in good faith, the AP reported.

Update 3/2/22, 6:00 p.m. ET: This article was updated with a statement from the NRA.

Go here to see the original:
New York AG's Effort to Shutter NRA Rejected Over First Amendment Rights - Newsweek

With the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics now underway, concerns over Chinas treatment of the Uyghurs have come back into public light. While many voice outrage over the Chine Communist Partys treatment of ethnic minorities, some choose to ignore the crisis or flat out state that no one cares about human rights abuses in China.

It certainly poses as a conundrum for Western nations: how can a country which promotes civil liberties, individual rights, and the equitable adjudication of the law partake in games hosted by a state which actively and systematically imprisons, tortures, and kills citizens?

Some American leaders have instructed athletes to not speak out against the regime.

As I wish the athletes well, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently warned, I do not encourage them to speak out against the Chinese government there because I fear for their safety if they do.

Similar inaction can be seen in Karnataka, India, where five school girls were barred from entering school, as a hijab ban was introduced. This ban spread to five other locations, preventing students with religious attire from entering. This is seen throughout Karnataka, as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh Party (RSS) recently gained majority electoral control. The RSS is known for attacking Muslims and Christians over their traditions, beliefs, and food choices. The judge referred the hijab ban case to an upper court; meanwhile, students remain banned until the case is decided.

Violence against Indias Muslim communities has be prevalent for years. Hindu mobs have been known to openly assault Muslims. The local police have made minimal effort in apprehending suspects, and many assaulters run free. A 2019 study found that 90 percent of victims of hate crimes in India were Muslim.

After a military coup in Myanmar in February 2021, there has been an increase in persecutions of the nations 4 million Christians. Infighting in majority Christian states Kachin and Shan shows the burning of churches and homes, and the killing of Christian pastors. The countrys various Buddhist, Muslim, and tribal communities express strong opposition towards their Christian neighbors; they see them as outsiders for converting.

Salai Za Uk Ling, the deputy director of the Chin Human Rights Organization describes the violence the Myanmar military inflicted on the town of Thantlang.

The killing of Cung Biak Hum and mutilation of his finger demonstrate the extent of disrespect and brutality with which [Myanmar military] soldiers are conducting themselves in their ongoing war against the people'', Salai told Al Jazeera.

The military justified their actions by stating that they received intel that local rebels were hiding in the town. This echoes the CCPs Uyghur camp response in which state officials proclaimed they were investigating Islamic Extremism.

But what do the civil rights abuses in China, Myanmar, and India have in common? Unlike the United States, these countries do not have an honored and enforced First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, religion, and assembly.

Though India and China both have constitutional provisions mentioning freedom of speech, assembly, and association, little is done to actually uphold these provisions. (Myanmar, meanwhile, doesnt have anything even approaching a First Amendment.)

In these states, the ability to speak freely and associate with any group is viewed as a privilege rather than a right. With no structure to support a communitys liberties, the majority is able to abuse the system and act violently, most of the time without repercussions. In China and Myanmar, the very government which is entrusted with the defense of its populace acts against its people. Whether for political control, quashing rebellions, or discriminating against minority communities, the lack of a first amendment and an objective rule of law allow those in power to subject people to abuses. India currently has a free speech score of 3.68/6; China and Myanmar arent even on the list. For reference, the US score is 5.73/6.

In forming the US Constitution, James Madison frequently wrote on the importance of protecting individual rights from an oppressive majority. In Federalist No. 10, he wrote on the dangers of a pure democracy:

...it may be concluded that a pure democracy a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual.

In this system, there are no safeguards for individual life, liberty, or property: the minority lamb is at the mercy of the majority wolves. Madison describes the various checks and balances a republic holds, and how factitious, radical groups cannot gain a foothold as easily:

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source.

The structure of a constitutional republic enforces its laws and honors its constitution, regardless of the will of encroaching hostile factions. Its the safeguard against injustice, whether it is targeted towards Uyghurs, Indian Muslims, Myanmar Christians, or others. America is unique in that it is one of the only countries in the world whose government enforces and honors its free speech. Though there may be instances of private censorship in the form of cancel culture, the federal government itself may not censor or imprison citizens for speech that does not constitute a true threat.

The First Amendment is a check on the government. It acknowledges the rights of citizens, and explicitly states that the government may not infringe on said rights. In China, the CCP is above the law, so it may abuse whichever rights it pleases, whenever it pleases. Indian officials do not honor the right to self-expression and identification, often turning a blind eye to mobs directing violence at religious minorities. In Myanmar, the constitution doesnt even enumerate individual rights to that extent, and the military in power is free to persecute Christians and other minorities.

So as we see civil liberties abuses occur in countries that dont support an individuals right to self-expression and identity, its important to remember that, regardless of your position on any hot-button topicwhether left, right, center, or otherthe First Amendment prevents the government from infringing on your inalienable human rights.

Read the original:
How the First Amendment Protects the Marginalized and Saves Lives | Connor Vasile - Foundation for Economic Education

This matter is in the news again, because of a proposal in Boston to limit residential picketing so that it can only happen from 9 am to 9 pm. (This appears to have been prompted by residential picketing outside Mayor Michelle Wu's home.) I therefore thought I'd repost an item of mine that answers the question:Is this sort of targeted residential picketing protected by the First Amendment?

The short answer: No, but any restrictions on such picketing have to be imposed through content-neutral statutes or ordinances (or, in some situations, injunctions); and they have to leave people free to demonstrate in the same neighborhood:

Carey involved a pro-busing group picketing the home of a mayor, while Frisby and Madsen involved anti-abortion groups picketing the homes of clinic employees. Indeed, most of the residential picketing cases I've seen have involved anti-abortion protesters; at least in the 1980s and 1990s, such residential picketing seemed to be a favored tactic of at least some parts of that movement.

But the Court of course didn't draw distinctions based on the content of the speech or based on whether the picketing was aimed at a public official. For instance, Justice Scalia, who had often faulted the Court in free speech cases where he thought anti-abortion speech was being treated unfairly, was in the majority in Frisby; Justices Brennan and Marshall, strong supporters of abortion rights, dissented; none of them seemed swayed by the speakers' ideology. Rather, as I note above, the Court expressly forbade such distinctions.

So a city or a state could ban picketing or allow it. But the rules would apply equally to anti-racism protesters, antifa protesters, anti-abortion protesters, alt.right protesters, and any other protesters.

To my knowledge, residential picketing is banned on a statewide basis only in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, though the statutes operate somewhat differently. (The Arizona ban is limited to picketing conducted "with intent to harass, annoy or alarm"; the Minnesota law allows injunctions to be issued based on targeted residential picketing that happens "on more than one occasion," rather than banning such picketing outright.) But various cities ban it as well.

Finally, even when there is no ordinance banning residential picketing, particular kinds of behavior while picketingespecially loud noise at night (cf. the August 2020 Washington protest outside the Postmaster General's home)may be banned by content-neutral restrictions. See Kovacs v. Cooper (1949). Of course, those restrictions must be enforced in a content-neutral manner as well: A city can't deliberately ignore loud protests that express certain views but then punish loud protests that express others.

Visit link:
Protests Outside People's Homes (Residential Picketing) and the First Amendment - Reason

By Anna Maria Basquez

EL PASO COUNTY, Colo. (CBS4) Administrators and a teacher at a Colorado Springs area high school are engaging in discussions with students and parents after an incident in which the teacher is alleged to have used racial slurs in the course of instruction.

Samantha Briggs, spokeswoman for Widefield School District 3, said Mesa Ridge High School Navy JROTC instructor Brian Gauck used the N-word in multiple classes. The district states the word was used in a discussion about the First Amendment.

I can confirm a JROTC instructor used the word during a class discussion around the First Amendment and language, Briggs said. The word was not used to call or refer to anyone.

The schools principal took immediate action once she was made aware of the situation and the instructor publicly apologized to all students in the classes.

In addition, the principal has apologized to students and parents on behalf of the school, she said. The principal and the instructor are engaging in individual conversations with students and parents to restore relationships. The district and the school are committed to providing a safe, welcoming, and culturally inclusive environment for all of our students and families. That is all the information I have on the situation at this time.

Briggs said she wouldnt provide any specifics on any possible disciplinary action that may have resulted from the situation.

View original post here:
Colorado Teacher Apologizes After Using N-Word In The Classroom During First Amendment Instruction - CBS Denver