...The Constitution and the Bill of Rights The freedom documents from early America were the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Constitution was documented and presented in 1787 and finally ratified by all states, except Rhode Island, and put into effect as a suitable replacement of the Articles of Confederation in the year 1788. Since then, it has played a significant role in ensuring the security and integrity of the United States of America. It has been accepted as the highest law of the land that determines the enforcement of all other laws by the federal government. The constitution is important for a great number of reasons. Primarily because it was the document that founded our government, and it was the basis of what would form the United States. The constitution is important because it outlines all of our rights as citizens. It gives a complete list of all the things that we can do, and the rights that we have. The constitution, and its amendments protects us, protects us from each other, protects us from our own government, protects us from wrongful prosecution, incriminating ourselves, our right to speech, our right to bear arms, and our right to freedom of religion. The constitution isn't just important; I believe it is the most important document ever crafted in American History, and the one document that affects every single citizen within the United States every single day. It is the foundation of our country. It provides a single legal basis for all...
Words: 918 - Pages: 4
...revising the Articles of Confederation; in May, representatives from twelve states convened in Philadelphia. The original Constitution, ratified by the states, contained very few individual rights guarantees, as the framers were primarily focused on establishing the machinery for an effective federal government. As adopted, the Constitution included only a few specific rights guarantees: protection against states impairing the obligation of contracts, provisions that prohibit both the federal and state governments from enforcing ex post facto laws (laws that allow punishment for an action that was not criminal at the time it was undertaken) and provisions barring bills of attainder. The framers, and notably James Madison, its architect, believed that the Constitution protected liberty primarily through its division of powers that made it difficult for an oppressive majorities to form and capture power to be used against minorities. In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that. With ratification in serious doubt, Federalists announced a willingness to take up the matter of a series of amendments, to be called the Bill of Rights, soon after ratification and the First Congress came into session. The concession was undoubtedly necessary to secure the...
Words: 853 - Pages: 4
...Constitution Civil Rights A police chief from New York police department, who deliberately threatened to kill and beat a man who broke into an SUV and took some embarrassing items, including sex toys, and several other items. He pleaded guilty in federal court on Friday to violating a citizen’s civil rights. The chief who led one of the country's largest suburban police departments is expected to receive over four years in prison for his actions. He also tried to cover up the beating as well, which then took place at the police station, he pleaded guilty to violating the suspect's civil rights. The ex-chief, along with several other members willfully used unreasonable force and physically hurt the individual causing major injuries. He deeply regrets not being honest. His plea reflects his desire to accept his responsibility for his own actions. The chief also admitted the he did, in fact use unnecessary force, slapping and hitting the man causing injuries. The chief did not elaborate much, but other officers were involved in the assault. The chief was arrested in December for his actions. A letter was written arguing against bail, the former prosecutor said that the ex-chief member was trying to get revenge on the man who broke into his SUV. The ex-chief just went way out of control. He called the suspect a pervert while he was freaking out. He was deliberately punching, hitting, and screaming, while threatening to kill the suspect with a heroin...
Words: 1448 - Pages: 6
...Constitutional Rights Constitutional Rights and Challenges for Freedom of Information and Speech Folorunso Eddo PAD 525 Constitutions and Administrative Law Professor Richard Freeman May 20, 2012 ABSRACT The First Amendment stated that all American citizens are entitled to the freedom of speech and association. However, the Supreme Court has ruled many times that that right is not completely guarantied. In the work place there are laws that protect us from workplace harassment. There is thin line between freedom of speech and sexual or other forms of harassment. The Freedom of Information Act empowered private citizens and organization to ability to request information from any government agency but sometime there may be a conflict in what the agency would want to allow for the public due to the national security. It is times like this that the Supreme Court is required to be involved. On February 1986, Lawrence Korb the vice president of Washington operation for Raytheon was invited to speak at a Washington policy group on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. Before then, He was assistant secretary for defense in the Reagan’s administration. In his speech Korb advocated the need for the Reagan Administration to reduce its budget spending in line with the budget and reduce the budget deficit. In his speech, he listed some of the agencies that he believed that could be reduced and what programs. The next morning...
Words: 1799 - Pages: 8
...Although the idea that all men are created equal and possess certain inviolable rights was not a novel thought, the American Founders and the Declaration of Independence reinvigorated in the minds of the American colonists that tyrannical and unjust government that encroached on one’s unalienable rights was worthy to be cast out. In that sense, the Declaration of Independence generates two fundamental arguments: that all men are equally born with a set of unalienable rights, “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,” and that government essentially serves as the fences instituted by its people to protect these rights. However, compared to the sheer gravity of these statements, the Founders do not employ words of great magnitude to convince their audience; rather, they simply state that their arguments of equality and just governance to be simply “self-evident.” Consequently, the underlying principle of the Declaration remains the Founders’ recognition of the unbreakable relationship between the natural rights of man and the functions and requirements of a just government. The Declaration defines a just government as one that prioritizes the protection of its people and their rights. Additionally, a just government only exists through the subsequent earning of trust and consent of its citizens through becoming the reliable protector of their rights to Life, Liberty, and pursuit of Happiness. Although all men are “by nature, all free, and independent” (Second Treatise Chapter...
Words: 1317 - Pages: 6
...Chapter One – Individual Rights Under the United States Constitution I. History of Criminal Procedure a. The Magna Carta i. 1215 agreement between King John of England and English nobility creating certain civil rights. ii. Due process is referred to as "law of the land" and "legal judgment of peers." Some state constitutions continue to use these phrases. iii. A legal principle which states that no one should be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by proper legal proceeding. The principle is enshrined in the 39th clause of Magna Carta (1215) which provides that ‘no freeman shall be arrested or imprisoned or deprived of his freehold or outlawed or banished or in any way ruined, nor will we (ie the monarch) take or order action against him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals and according to the law of the land’. b. The United States Constitution iv. 1789 v. Bill of Rights – proposed in 1789 and ratified (became law) in 1791. vi. Chapter 1, Page 14 – Provisions of Bill of Rights – Table 1.2 vii. The notion of due process is also embodied in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution, and in Articles 5 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. viii. The reference in the 5th Amendment applies only to the federal government and its courts and agencies. The reference in the 14th Amendment extends protection of due process to all state governments...
Words: 1743 - Pages: 7
...“The United Kingdom’s constitution does not provide sufficient protection for the right to protest in the streets. Discuss” The United Kingdoms constitution organises and regulates the power of the state. The difference between the UK and other states constitutions e.g. USA is that the constitution of the UK is not written, but has been passed over generations by the power of ‘word of mouth.’ This is due largely to the fact that the UK has never felt the need to begin a new ‘set of established’ rules largely due to its stability, it can be said that Britain has an ‘uncodified constitution.’ [1] Within the UK constitution, the Prime Minister acts as the executive, so therefore the leader has the power to enact law upon the state. The right to protest is seen as one of the fundamental human rights in the form of a manifestation of a the rights of freedom of speech, association and assembly. It has a statutory basis in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the "Convention"), which has been incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998. Our opinion of the UK’s police has been one which has been described with bravery and largely courageous attitude The image of protectors springs to mind, they are responsible for upholding the law and deterring away criminals, they also have the right to defend themselves and others in civilised manner and sometimes apparent force becomes necessary. In the instance of large members of the public being...
Words: 1311 - Pages: 6
...1. What percent of the southern population must take an oath of loyalty to be able to be represented in Congress? Why did you choose that number? Fifty percent of the state’s voters in the presidential election should take an oath of allegiance to the United States and should be pledged to bide by emancipation. The state government would be within the state and then the state would be re-admitted into the Union. That way fifty percent of voters would have a say so and an opinion. 2. Should the 13th Amendment be acknowledged and should civil rights be guaranteed by all state constitutions? Why or why not? Yes, I think the 13th Amendment should be acknowledged because slavery should be banned and slaves should have all the freedoms that...
Words: 952 - Pages: 4
...1. constitutionalism, constitutional supremacy and the rule of law 1. constitutionalism a. Constitution without constitutionalism? Keith E Whittington, constitutionalism [5] * Constitutionalism = the constraining of government in order to better effectuate the fundamental principles of the political regime. i.e. A system of effective restrains on governmental action. * Constitution (often) = the written document that formalizes the framework of government * => Constitutionalism should be distinguished from the mere possession of a constitution * Written constitutions may provide few effective constraints on government or may be ignored, and governments may be effectively constrained w/o a written constitution (e.g. Britain) * Constitutionalism often (does not mean it necessarily equals to) associated specifically with liberalism, protection of individual rights against the state. * => constitutional state identified not by possession of a constitution but by its effective protection of individual rights. * (but individual rights only one set of fundamental principles that might impose meaningful limits on power of the state) * Constitutionalism also used to constrain power holders to care for the common weal or adhere to particular conceptions of national identity or religious law * 3-fold classification of province of constitutionalism * Normative Constitutionalism (most touched-on area) * Concerned with...
Words: 10446 - Pages: 42
...The UK needs a codified constitution: A constitution is a set of laws, rules and practices that authorize the state to govern, also specifying the powers of the governing institution and the formal relationships between them, civilian and the state. There are numerous types of constitution. Constitutions could be codified and uncodified, unitary (Centralized government makes legislation, and passes it down through local authorities) or federal (Power travels up through regional bodies to the centralized state.) The United Kingdom is unique in other words there are just 4 nations around the globe that have a written constitution and the UK is one of them. The others being Israel, Canada and New Zealand. On the other hand the USA is an example of a codified constitution. A codified constitution is a constitution in which key written documents are gathered inside a single document, it is generally known as a written constitution. Additionally they are entrenched, enjoying the protection of higher court. Moreover in a codified constitution laws can only be amended by special provisions. Therefore making it rigid, in other words it is extremely difficult to pass laws in a codified constitution. Alongside this, an uncodifed constitution relies on various sources meaning it is not written down in a single document, this is in contrast to a codified constitution where all the laws are to be found in one single document. In addition an uncodified constitution is not entrenched and...
Words: 968 - Pages: 4
...Britain retaining its uncodified constitution remains extremely strong. (25 marks) On the one hand it can be argued that Britain should not retain its uncodified constitution because it makes us unusual as only the UK, Israel and New Zealand do not have one. On the other hand it can be argued that Britain should retain its uncodified constitution because of the flexibility of our constitution which would be lost if our constitution was codified. Overall, it can be argued here that the argument for Britain retaining its uncodified has two very strong sides that both have good reasons for Britain retaining its uncodified constitution and not retaining it. Britain should retain its uncodified constitution because the flexibility of the UKs constitution is a great asset that would be lost if we introduced a codified constitution. We have no fundamental/entrenched law that legislation must be compatible with which gives Parliament great flexibility to pass all legislation that is needed to meet current problems. However, this flexibility means that our rights are less well protected for example the gun owners in America have had their rights much better served by the codified constitution that they have than the UK gun owners who suddenly found their weapons banned by the law. Therefore, it is argued that Britain should retain uncodified constitution because of its flexibility. Another reason why Britain should also retain uncodified constitution because a codified one would lead...
Words: 762 - Pages: 4
...dominant principle of the UK Constitution, is now under considerable pressure. Discuss this statement with reference to the UK’s membership of the EU, the devolution acts of 1998, the Human Rights Act 1998 and recent judicial comments on the Rule of Law. "Certainly we want to see Europe more united… but it must be in a way which preserves the different traditions, parliamentary powers, and sense of pride in one's own country." Margaret Thatcher Over the course of the years many prominent figures such as politicians and academic writers have been concerned with the diminishing of Parliamentary sovereignty. “Parliamentary sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority in the UK, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change. Parliamentary sovereignty is the most important part of the UK constitution.” Historically, due to the lack of a single codified constitution in the UK, the Westminster Parliament is the most powerful and influencing factor on the British political frontier. As opposed to America where the constitution dominates US politics, and legislation can be deemed unconstitutional and revoked by the US judiciary. However, since further integration into Europe incorporating The European Communities Act 1972, The Human Rights Act 1998, European Conventions on Human Rights and devolving legislative powers...
Words: 1911 - Pages: 8
...of Britain’s ‘un-codified’ Constitution Britain are one of the few countries in the world that still posses and un-codified constitution, other states that posses un-codified constitutions are New Zealand and Israel. A constitution is a set of rules which guidelines what the people of the nation and the government have the rights to do, these rules or guidelines are normally printed in one sovereign place. An un-codified constitution differs from this as is not one sovereign book or piece of writing that outlines the rules of the state. This short answer will assess the strengths and weakness of Britain having an un-codified constitution. The first strength to consider is the fact that our un-codified constitution is more flexible then a codified constitution. Many nations find it difficult to pass legislation because the constitution holds the government accountable and protects the individuals. Example of this could be after terrorist attacks Britain was able to quickly pass legislation detaining terror suspects for longer period of time, where as other nations constitutions protected the individuals liberties and prevented their governments from detaining suspects for long periods of time. From the first argument we can see that flexibility is a strength of an un-codified constitution, however it can also be a weakness. Without the codified constitution there is no checks on the government other then the opposition, a codified constitution creates a just political system...
Words: 579 - Pages: 3
...a codified constitution differs from an uncodified one. (10 marks) A constitution is a set of rules that seek to establish the duties, powers and functions of the various institutions of government. A codified constitution is one which the major principles underpinning the political system are collected in a single authorative document. On the other hand uncodified constitution has no single source for these values rather, they are found in a number of places. The UK is an example of an uncodified constitution whereas the USA is a representation of codified. In this essay I will address how each form differs from the other. In a codified constitution, the document itself is authorative in the sense that it establishes “higher law”. This type of constitution binds all political institutions, including those that make ordinary law. The provisions of the constitution are also known to be entrenched. This means that it is difficult to amend, make changes or abolish. Conversely, uncodified constitution is in no sense authoritive, its laws enjoy the same status as conventional laws. Unlike a codified constitution, it is not entrenched – this allows flexibility and means that the constitution can be changed through the normal process of enacting statute law. As well as this, a codified constitution often states the rights of the country’s citizens so there is a degree of clarity and something in which the people can identify with. Whereas an uncodified constitution can lead to...
Words: 370 - Pages: 2
...is constrained by the British Constitution Constitutions are fundamental rules that regulate how a state or any other type of organisation is supposed to be governed. A quote by the UCL Constitution Unit “Constitutions organise, distribute and regulate state power. They set out the structure of the state, the major state institutions, and the principles governing their relations with each other and with the state’s citizens”. The points I would like to raise that would support this statement are that the UK constitution is uncodified, Parliamentary Sovereignty, government control over parliament. However there are major points that would contradict with this statement; Rule of law, European court of human rights, referendums. The fact that the British Constitution is uncodified means that it can be flexible which means that I can be easily changed and adapted according to the circumstance, also it means that not every single thing is written down on one document it is spread out in many. This means that once there is a matter that the government needs to deal with they won’t be restricted by the constitution. For example the US constitution is codified which means that everything is on one document which would restrict them from doing anything that may be wrong now but believed to right in the past. Furthermore a law that is written by the US constitution that has mainly obstructed the way people want to live their lives is “people have the right to bare arms”. This law confines...
Words: 836 - Pages: 4
