Category: American Constitution

The First Amendment has been one of the most questionable issues encompassing the Constitution since its confirmation in 1787. The First Amendment states, ‘Congress will make no law regarding a foundation of religion, or denying the free exercise thereof, or compressing the right to speak freely, or of the press, or the privilege of the individuals quietly to collect, and to request of the Government for a review of complaints.’ Many individuals differ on the degree of intensity the First Amendment really has on the privilege to free discourse. One of the most disputable issues encompassing the First Amendment is how much impact an organization can have over the political races. To begin with, as per the larger part supposition, enterprises, associations, or non-benefits from associations ought to be permitted to communicate electioneering interchanges even before general or essential races (Citizens United v. Government Election Commission, 2010, unpaged). Besides, this choice of the Supreme Court overruled a few arrangements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). This administrative demonstration set points of confinement on corporate spending on political battling.

This arrangement of the BCRA was proclaimed to be illegal on the grounds that it abused individuals’ entitlement to free discourse and articulation (Citizens United v. Government Election Commission, 2010, unpaged). The choice is introduced on the possibility that the Constitution and particularly the First Amendment give equivalent assurance to singular natives and to gatherings of residents who can frame associations, entryways, or enterprises. Legal Ruling This contention was upheld by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Robert, and Thomas. For the disagreeing supposition, this decision can give enterprises an excessive amount of political power, and make provisos for debasement of political pioneers. Indeed corporate substances have more chances to gather bigger aggregates of cash. Along these lines, they can outspend a large number of their political rivals. Those judges, who disagreed, for instance, Stevens, Breyer, or Ginsburg, contended that boundless corporate investment in political crusades can inevitably smother the voices of other individuals. There are different methodologies that can be utilized to investigate this case. Specifically, one can concentrate on the methodology taken by Justice Antonin Scalia. His perspectives are started on the possibility that the First Amendment stresses the assurance of free discourse, yet it doesn’t recognize sorts of speakers (Scalia, unpaged). At the end of the day, this authoritative archive does not tell that companies ought not to be conceded the privilege to free discourse.

There is no determination or commentary referencing that any relationship of individuals ought to be denied the privilege to free discourse. To some extent, his translation of the First Amendment can be known as a dark letter approach. This implies a lawmaker should concentrate on the content of an authoritative record, as opposed to its alleged or claimed implications. Given that there is no express restriction on corporate political activism, there is no motivation to confine their uses to political crusades. This contention can be acknowledged, in any case, one should consider that laws are always expounded, determined, or even abrogated. Along these lines, a dark letter approach can really ignore the actual intent of the law. Besides, the agreeing supposition of Justice Scalia depends on the possibility that organizations speak to individuals’ interests, and objectives. They are shaped by unique individuals, and they are controlled by individuals. All the more significantly, they speak to the interests of investors and workers. Consequently, such relationships of individuals have a similar ideal to free discourse. In addition, as per Justice Scalia, the forbiddance of corporate political discourse can ‘gag the main specialists of the cutting edge free economy’ (Scalia, unpaged). At the end of the day, these associations go about as the principal drivers of the present-day economy, and they ought to reserve an option to express their understanding or conflict with the approaches of the state; else they are not liable to succeed. By and by, it merits referencing that much of the time, corporate administrators neglected to meet their responsibilities to partners. Truth be told, numerous corporate embarrassments show that frequently, partners can’t impact the choices of corporate pioneers. This is the fundamental impediment to Scalia’s translation.

To some degree, this line of thinking has been tested has been Joel Seligman. In this sentiment of this lawful expert, it may be hazardous to compare the privileges of individual natives with the privileges of partnerships. In Seligman’s view, this choice can make the reason for the further political freedom of companies; specifically, one can talk about their capacity to make ‘direct corporate commitments to applicants’ (Seligman, unpaged). As of now, they are denied from doing it, if this forbiddance is lifted, the political intensity of organizations can turn out to be for all intents and purposes unchallenged, particularly given their money-related influence. In turning around the District Court’s judgment that the BCRA’s confinements on corporate free consumptions were unlawful, the Supreme Court found that there was no real way to determine the case on a smaller ground without cooling the First Amendment. The Majority perceived the significance of keeping the legislature from editing discourse dependent on the speaker’s character, in any case, if the speaker is an individual or an organization.

The Court underscored that if the administration controls political discourse, it must do as such just in the event that it can set up that the limitation ‘assists a convincing interest and is barely custom-made to accomplish that enthusiasm.’ In applying this severe investigation standard to corporate uses, the Court dismissed the support that autonomous uses bring about political defilement or the presence of debasement. The Court additionally focused on that political discourse is ‘fundamental to basic leadership in a vote-based system, and this is no less evident in light of the fact that the discourse originates from an enterprise.’ The Court found that the forbiddance on corporate uses, was, indeed, a restriction on ensured discourse. Such a restriction would preclude voters from unreservedly getting data from assorted sources and would meddle with the honesty of the political procedure. That a difference in staff can have any kind of effect, particularly on an issue where the Court is firmly separated, is confirmed in this debate by the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and her substitution by Justice Samuel Alito. O’Connor was a piece of the larger part of McConnell in 2003. In FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007), the Court predicted the outcome in Citizens United by holding the confinement on electioneering interchanges illegal where the correspondence was an ‘issue advertisements’ and did not express backing in support of a specific competitor. Alito was a piece of the greater part. Boss Justice John Roberts’ conclusion was held back before turning around McConnell, yet reminded perusers that a couple of sorts of discourse can make a case for being as fundamental to the First Amendment as battle discourse.’ Three judges would have basically overruled McConnell. One of them, Anthony Kennedy, later composed the assessment that did that in Citizens United. After the mis-venture in Austin and the tormented suppositions in McConnell v. FEC (2003), the Court in Citizens United basically has come back to its prior law and ensured the privileges of all, including people, affiliations, associations, and organizations, to take an interest in political talk. Six years and two decision cycles since Citizens United, the sky has not fallen. Whatever upsets the discretionary procedure, political advertisements about up-and-comers rank low on the rundown. As opposed to the emergency mongering of First Amendment Luddites, enterprises have spent much equivalent to previously. For sure, singular enterprises are not the biggest spenders, and associations, particularly open worker associations, inevitably might be greater recipients of the choice. In addition, the endeavors of business, work, and issue-arranged intrigue gatherings have been overshadowed by more the consumptions by the real gatherings, and by the colossal aggregates raised straightforwardly by presidential up-and-comers. Rehashed measures to control battle consumptions through layers of guidelines have quite recently made issues progressively dark, however, the intricacy of the laws and the danger of crime arraignments have brought about a benefit for race law lawyers.

Multifaceted nature and mistiness dissuade littler relationships from taking an interest in the political procedure, as the Court noted in Citizens United, and amplify the influence of wealthier entertainers ready to move through the administrative maze. One reason corporate spending has not changed much is that related substances already could spend boundless ‘delicate’ cash on electioneering exercises (even inside the time before a decision) through a political activity board. Endeavoring to control political spending in a nation of 300 million that guesses itself to be a participatory political framework and one that prizes educated electorates, is illusory. As previous California Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh broadly announced, ‘Cash is the mother’s milk of governmental issues.’ Citizens United is reliable to the First Amendment’s fundamental beliefs and carries the potential for greater responsibility to battle financing. The case focused on a film that the traditionalist promotion bunch Citizens United had made about Hillary Clinton. During the 2008 race, the gathering needed to run and promote the film on TV, yet a lower court had decided that they were disallowed from doing as such in light of the fact that they were a philanthropic partnership and the film specifies an applicant, hence making it an ‘electioneering correspondence.’ In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court controlled in a 5-4 vote that the prohibition on political spending by enterprises and associations was illegal in light of the fact that it damaged the First Amendment’s security of free discourse. For whatever length of time that this going through was not composed with crusades, the court stated, it would not ‘offer ascent to debasement or the presence of defilement.’ In this way, Citizens United enabled partnerships to spend on decisions. Yet, it isn’t the entire story of how we got to where we are today. The court found that the administration has ‘no enemy of defilement enthusiasm for constraining commitments to an autonomous use gathering.’ Conclusion and Further Study In general, the choice of the Supreme Court can be bolstered in light of the fact that enterprises need to conform to an assortment of laws and guidelines, and yet they should be permitted to express their political conclusion. These relationships of individuals can be censured for an assortment of reasons, however, they will keep on residual the primary drivers of the U.S. economy. Along these lines, they ought to reserve an option for political discourse. In any case, it merits recollecting that there are situations when companies neglected to act to the greatest advantage of their partners. In addition, much of the time, corporate administrators acted against these interests. This is a hazard that officials ought not to ignore.

While on the tour of Wall Street, we were able to see many important historical sites. The sights reflected the roots of New York and how it came to be. We were able to see where many important historical events happened in New Amsterdam and how life was. One of the more important sights we saw was Federal Hall. Being where the Executive branch, Congress, and the Supreme Court were first located. Federal Hall is also where George Washington became the United States’ first president. This is where different branches of government did their work when New York City was the first capital of America. At Federal Hall, the Bill of Rights was proposed, and the First Amendment was approved. This is perhaps our most important amendment because the First Amendment gives us the right to freedom of speech. Dr. Owen Anderson, author of Why the First Amendment is ‘first in importance’”, stated, “By connecting the freedom of religion with the freedom of speech, the First Amendment gets to the essence of what it is to be a human — for it is self-evident that we are thinking beings” (Anderson 1). Without freedom of speech, the government would be able to restrict everything that we say. This would not allow us to voice our opinions or beliefs to others.

Federal Hall currently demonstrates its respect for this amendment. Federal Hall has an area outside, that allows groups of people to exercise their First Amendment, called the First Amendment Rights Area. Therefore, Federal Hall National Memorial says, “We encourage citizens to exercise rights guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the courts have recognized that activities associated… regulated to protect the public and park resources” (NPS 1). Here at Federal Hall, we were able to see that on the steps they allow us to have Freedom of Speech. In this selected area, a small group of people can hand out flyers with information, get signatures for petitions, and more. This shows how Federal Hall sticks to its roots with the First Amendment. Since it was enacted here, they stand by it and honor its use to this day.

Another important site to me that we saw was the African Burial Grounds. Here we were able to see the monument for all the slaves that died during the time New York City was New Amsterdam. Their bodies were found when a building was supposed to be built on the site, but something was found. “When digging for the building, they discovered around 400 slave tombs” (Zinszner 1). In the 1600s slaves were used to perform tasks and work for white people. Even though we think of the South as a place where slavery was heavily ingrained, it was prevalent in the North as well. In fact, “New Amsterdam had the second-largest slave population besides Charleston in 1741” (Zinszner 1). This is interesting to think about because many of us probably would not expect to think of New York as a place where slaves were prevalent. This memorial reminds us that slaves were a huge part of life in New Amsterdam. Between multiple slave revolts and beliefs of conspiracy, many people’s lives were taken. This memorial was touching since it showed respect for those who died. The African Burial Grounds helps us to see that these people’s lives were very important.

While walking on the side of the street, we were able to see a well that New Amsterdam used to use. This well was not like today’s, the well we saw was rather shallow. This was because of the lack of water in New Amsterdam during the 17th century. There was no water source coming directly to New Amsterdam and the closest body of water was the Hudson River. The Erie Canal had not been constructed yet, so there was no flow of water into the city. Without the canal, there was no way for enough water to be brought in for the whole city. Since the canal wasn’t finished until 1825, fires from houses made of wood were common. The water during this period was also dirty. Thus, making the water unsafe to drink and causing health problems for the residents of New Amsterdam. By drinking the dirty water, many got sick and some could have become seriously ill. Due to the dirty water in the city, the sanitation conditions became worse. This could be part of the reason why people did not live very long during this era. In fact, “The life expectancy was 35 and 1/3 to ½ of the population died before the age of 16” (Zinszner 1).

The water epidemic in New York City still exists almost 200 years later. This was the case in 1832 with the cholera outbreak in New York City. Author of “How Epidemics Helped Shape the Modern Metropolis,” John Wilford, stated, “The epidemic left 3,515 dead out of a population of 250,000. (The equivalent death toll in today’s city of eight million would exceed 100,000.)” (Wilford 1). This shows how deadly the outbreak was and the impact that it had on the population.

These were the most important sights that stood out to me the most. Seeing these sights gave me a better understanding of the history of New Amsterdam (New York). Seeing Federal Hall reminded me of everything our past Presidents/Congressmen did for us. They gave us all the rights that we currently do now. The burial ground reminded me to honor other people’s lives and be thankful for what I currently have. With the well, it helped me see how it would be very hard to have access to water. The well was shallow, which would mean that the water would run out quickly. So, in some cases, there could be no water in the well.

Works Cited

1. “Federal Hall National Memorial (U.S. National Park Service).” National Parks Service, U.S.
2. Department of the Interior, www.nps.gov/feha/index.htm.
3. “Why the First Amendment Is ‘First in Importance’.” The Washington Times, The Washington Times, 12 Dec. 2016, www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/12/why-the-first-amendment-is-first-in-importance/.
4. Wilford, John Noble. “How Epidemics Helped Shape the Modern Metropolis.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 15 Apr. 2008, www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15chol.html?mtrref=www.google.com&assetType=REGIWALL.

For a while, it has been a debate that cameras should be allowed in courtrooms because reporters and journalists have a First Amendment right to cover the news. However, other people, including judges of courtrooms believe that because of cameras in the courtroom, some trials may seem unfair. Although it may be against First Amendment rights, specifically the Freedom of the Press, I would have to support those who believe that cameras should not be allowed in the courtroom.

Before talking about the background of cameras in the courtroom and both the opposing and supporting sides of cameras in the courtroom, I want to talk about the First Amendment, specifically the Freedom of Press, and the Sixth Amendment. The First Amendment, in my own words, is our freedom of speech. The First Amendment could be split into five different parts, including speech, press, assembly, petition, and religion. The First Amendment is pretty much the reason why journalists and reporters for the news media are able to gather most news from many different sources, because of their freedom of the press. The Sixth Amendment is the right to a fair and public trial. This means that defendants will get a trial that is fair to them and not tilted in anyone’s favor. When these two Amendments come together, I feel a clash between the Freedom of the Press and a fair trial, where the press has the freedom to get anything for the news. When it comes to covering a trial for the news, I feel the reporter or journalist could show bias in their coverage of the trial, making those who view the covering on TV or in the newspaper lean to that same side the reporter or journalist, leading to an unfair trial.

A website for the United States Courts has an article on their website detailing the history of cameras within the courtroom, simply titled “History of Cameras in Courts.” They talk about an extensive history of cameras being present in courtrooms from 1946 to 2016. It all started with a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, also known as Rule 53. “Rule 53 states: ‘except as otherwise provided by a statute of these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings.’” (www.uscourts.gov) this meant that the media was not allowed to take photographs, and even broadcast when a judicial proceeding was taking place. In a Judicial Conference in September 1990, they came up with a policy that made it so a judge could permit media to televise, broadcast, and take photos of the courts, but only for special purposes. “A judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only: for the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings, for security purposes, for other purposes of judicial administration, or in accordance with pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States.” (www.uscourts.gov) The Judicial Conference would also hold pilot programs, experimenting with how cameras would affect courtrooms, specifically district courts. One pilot project would last 3 years and would be held in 1991, and the other in 2010. In the end, the Judicial Conference had a session around the 15th of March 2016, where it had come up with the latest set of rules the media is supposed to follow, which are very similar to the guidelines that the Judicial Conference had made back in September 1990. “A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom, and in adjacent areas during the investigative, neutralization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A Judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only: For the presentation of evidence, for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings, for security purposes, for other purposes of judicial administration, for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments, or in accordance with pilot programs approved by the judicial conference.” (www.uscourts.gov)

Ruth Ann Strickland, author of an article titled “Cameras In the Courtroom,” goes over the history of cameras and journalists in the courtroom. “Placing cameras in the courtroom has historically stirred controversy. Opponents and proponents have invoked First Amendment provisions guaranteeing the public’s right to public information, the Sixth Amendment’s right to a fair and public trial, and the 14th Amendment’s due process protection.” (Ruth Ann Strickland) Ruth Ann Strickland believes that cameras in the courtroom have created a divide between people, and how some people believe that having cameras in the court could be good, and how having cameras could be bad. Ruth uses one court case as an example of how disruptive the media could be when it comes to a court trial. She uses the Hauptmann v. State trial as an example of their disruptiveness towards the court. Ruth Ann Strickland gives a side to both opponents and supporters of the topic of cameras in the courtroom. On the opposing side, she explains that cameras distract people, including the witnesses, which could make the judge feel off about them, leading to an unfair trial. On the supporting side, she explains that broadcasters don’t believe recording with today’s technology in the courtroom isn’t disruptive to participants in the trial. “They claim that under the watchful eyes of thousands of viewers, the judge, attorneys, and jurors are more likely to pay careful attention to the facts of a case, and be on their best behavior, helping to ensure fairer trials.” (Ruth Ann Strickland)

There are those who do support and those who don’t support the idea that cameras should be used in the courtroom. In a journal article titled, “AT ISSUE: Cameras in the Courtroom,” the authors have two different opposing views. The first author of the article, Floyd Abrams, believes that cameras should be used in the courtroom. “A single silent courtroom camera serves as an antidote to such behavior by truthfully showing the public how attorneys and judges actually behave.” (Floyd Abrams) I feel that Floyd Abrams motivates his point through how the jury and the attorneys act throughout the case. He feels that people should get to know what really happens during a court case, whether a judge allows for a camera in their court or not. Floyd does know that not all court cases would allow for a camera to be present. “Certainly high-profile cases present special problems. Juries are difficult to pick; sequestration is sometimes thought necessary. These are the inherent problems of notorious cases, not of live television coverage of those cases.” (Floyd Abrams) While he understands that more special cases are harder to be televised, I feel he is blaming the case in particular, instead of televised cameras that may be recording that case. The second author of the article, Wendy Kaminer, opposes the idea that cameras should belong in a courtroom. “If television executives are given general access to the nation’s courts, what proceedings will they choose to cover? What public purpose will be served? High-profile cases that can be most profitably televised, appealing to the most advertisers, will enjoy the attention.” (Wendy Kaminer) I believe that Wendy is trying to say that if television executives did have the right and permission to cover court cases, those court cases could be easily monetized, without care for what is actually happening in that court at the time. Wendy also adds that having a camera within the courtroom makes it a participant, changing how people act. We have already heard something similar to this within Ruth Ann Strickland’s article, with the opposing side’s argument. “If excessive publicity does little to inform public debate, does it facilitate a fair trial process? Not likely. The camera becomes a participant in the trial, not merely an observer of it. Cameras change the behavior of the people they record.” (Wendy Kaminer)

Al Tompkins, an author from Poynter, wrote an article titled “A Case for Cameras in the Courtroom,” which talks about his experience with cameras being present in the courtroom, and how the court handled them. He talks about how journalists first got cameras prohibited from being used in court. “Ironically, we as journalists dug our own hole on this issue. The restrictions go back to a landmark trial in 1965, the case of Billie Sol Estes v. Texas. Journalists and photographers covering that trial acted so outrageously that the Supreme Court slammed the door on cameras in the courts.” (Al Tompkins) Tompkins explains that because of appeals from news organizations to the Supreme Court, and because of the technology of cameras becoming less burdensome in courtrooms, courts started to trust journalists again. “It took 15 years of appeals from news organizations from the Supreme Court to hear the matter again. In 1981, when cameras got quieter and needed no extra lights, the high court ruled that just having a camera in a courtroom is not, in itself, unconstitutional.” (Al Tompkins) He explains that most courts allow for camera coverage of trials, but some federal courts and the supreme court still don’t allow for cameras to be present. However, Tompkins came up with the thought that cameras could be possible in the Supreme Court. “If the Supreme Court is to open its doors to cameras, it has to be convinced that journalists will behave themselves and act professionally, recognizing the serious business of justice takes precedence over ‘good TV.’” (Al Tompkins) Although Tompkins talks about the history of the situation, I feel that Al Tompkins sides with the supporting side, because he looks at the positives of what happened when it came to cameras beginning to get allowed again. Towards the end, he also encourages journalists and news organizations to take action, by saying, “They should educate judges, lawmakers, and attorneys about how cameras work … after covering a hearing or trial, they should solicit and be responsive to concerns from judges and lawyers involved in proceedings” (Al Tompkins) and saying, “When a judge does grant permission for camera and audio coverage, journalists should strictly follow the rules of the court.” (Al Tompkins)

The Freedom of Press may protect journalists and reporters from gathering the news and reporting the truth. But is there a time when the Freedom of the Press conflicts with another Amendment? The Sheppard V Maxwell case was what I feel is a prime example of the Freedom of the Press conflicting with the Sixth Amendment, which is the right to a fair and public trial. Albert B. Lawrence, author of an article titled “A Murder that Mattered: Sam Sheppard, the Supreme Court, and Free Press/Fair Trial,” summarizes what happened during the Sam Sheppard court case, and talks about some of the challenges when it came to Free Press and Fair Trial. “Soon, it became a national story, and ‘men and women all over the United States were saying the same thing: ‘Sheppard did it himself!’ – a judgment based largely upon information disseminated by Ohio newspapers, television reports, and radio broadcasts,’ according to one chronicler of the case.” (Albert B. Lawrence) The article continues, talking about what a judge should do to make the trial private, and closed to journalists, by closing a pretrial hearing and ignoring news reports concerning the trial, and what needs to be done in order for a change of venue to take place. In the end, Sam Sheppard was able to be tried for a second time, without interruption of the news media. “After the Supreme Court’s decision, Sam Sheppard was tried a second time and acquitted … All photographers were ordered to stay outside the Cuyahoga County Courthouse. The reporters who were privileged to cover the trial officially were barred from securing information other than what they could gather in the small courtroom.” (Albert. B Lawrence)

My choice of supporting those who believe that cameras should not be allowed in any courtroom, including the Supreme Court concerns the Freedom of the Press conflicting with the Sixth Amendment, which is the right to a fair and public trial. I feel that the news should have a greater right of access to information, however not so much of this access to information would make a court case look one-sided. With court cases like Sheppard V. Maxwell, having so many members of media within the court just to gather information for the public, I feel they would hype up the trial, leading to participants becoming more on edge, even including the judge. I feel that with the media hyping these trials, and twisting the story to gain people’s attention, people become inclined to take a side with these trials and expect justice to be ruled, even if the suspect in court could be innocent. “in Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966), the Court ordered a retrial of Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard, whose trial for the murder of his wife was also marred by extensive media coverage.” (Ruth Ann Strickland) It is at this point I feel a trial becomes one-sided, and unfair, leading to an issue with the Sixth Amendment, which is the right to a fair and public trial. The Sixth Amendment, I feel is supposed to protect those in court, and prevent outside sources, like the media, from tarnishing the reputation of those taking part in a trial. I believe that the only way for these two Amendments to work together, specifically the Freedom of the Press and the right to a fair trial parts of these Amendments, is for reporters and journalists to remain neutral through any trial, gathering general information about the trial, and showing no bias for a side throughout the trial.

What about the ethics of this case? Is it ethical for judges to remove reporters and journalists from the court whenever possible, and for cameras to not be allowed in the courtroom? I believe that it is both ethical and unethical for a judge to keep reporters and journalists out of their courtroom. For the unethical side, I believe that Journalists and reporters do have a right to report the news. From the Media Law and Ethics textbook, the Journalist Code of Ethics implies for reporters and journalists “Seek the truth and report it.” (Breslin, 43) This means that the job of a journalist is ethical, in which that they must report the truth to the public, who is unaware of the issue at hand. This means they should be able to get access to records in a courtroom. This is where my ethical side comes in. I feel that it is ethical for a judge to revoke recording permissions from reporters and journalists for a trial because you have to think, is what’s being presented in the court set in stone? In other words, is the truth being conveyed throughout the trial? Another part of the Journalist Code of Ethics, from the Media Law and Ethics textbook, is “‘Minimize harm,’ especially when dealing with children and crime victims.” (Breslin, 43) As seen in the Sheppard case, reporters and journalists in the media could show bias and could cause harm to the victim in that trial if they choose not to side with the crime victim. Another reason is a disruption or distraction of a court trial. How will the media act when it comes to an influential or popular trial? On one hand, you have the media behaving disruptively and distractingly, which will lead to participants in the trial taking notice and will become distracted themselves. On the other hand, you have the media behaving properly, leading to a natural and focused trial.

Although it may be against First Amendment rights, specifically the Freedom of the Press, I would have to support those who believe that cameras should not be allowed in the courtroom. For a while, it has been a debate that cameras should be allowed in courtrooms because reporters and journalists have a First Amendment right to cover the news. Throughout this paper, we have seen both sides of the spectrum for this situation, involving those who support camera coverage in the court, and those who oppose it. We also see a brief history of the situation, and where and when it could and couldn’t be allowed.

Works Cited:

1. Lawrence, Albert B. “A Murder That Mattered: Sam Sheppard, the Supreme Court, and Free Press/Fair Trial.” Journal of Supreme Court History, vol. 43, no. 2, July 2018, pp. 160–172. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/jsch.12177.
2. ABRAMS, FLOYD, and WENDY KAMINER. “AT ISSUE: Cameras in the Courtroom.” ABA Journal, vol. 81, no. 9, 1995, pp. 36–37. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27837281. Accessed 7 Nov. 2020.
3. Tompkins, Al. “A Case for Cameras in the Courtroom.” Poynter, 21 Aug. 2002, www.poynter.org/archive/2002/a-case-for-cameras-in-the-courtroom/.
4. Strickland, Ruth Ann. Cameras in the Courtroom, 2009, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/989/cameras-in-the-courtroom.
5. “History of Cameras in Courts.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras-courts.
6. Breslin, Jack. Media Law and Ethics. Second Revised Preliminary Edition ed., Cognella, Inc., 2014. Accessed 8 Nov. 2020.

On December 15, 1791, the new United States of America ratified the Bill of Rights containing the first ten amendments of the Constitution. These amendments ensured the fundamental rights of American citizens. Included in the first ten amendments was, of course, the First Amendment. The First Amendment protected freedom of speech, protest, press, petition, and religion under federal law for all United States citizens. British colonial rule tightly monitored speech and press, and prosecuted offenders under the seditious libel laws. Sometimes the violators were punished severely, with the bleakest being death. The English used this to their advantage to silence political opposition. The Sons of Liberty, a political group organized to protest the British Acts, brutally fought these laws by burning effigies and looting the homes of those believed to be loyal to governors and the Crown. The colonists began to understand the British oppression of their fundamental rights and started to resist them. Boycotts of British goods became more popular, the colonists opposed the law of sedition during certain court cases, such as the case of John Peter Zenger, who printed a journal that criticized the government. Zenger became a symbol of the freedom of the press in the young American colonies.

When out of the grasp of England, the Founding Fathers argued that protection of speech was imperative to the proper function of a free nation and created the Bill of Rights that incorporated the First Amendment. Cases such as the New York Times Company vs. the United States and Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier have tested the limits of the freedoms afforded under the amendment. The formation and establishment of the First Amendment demonstrated the importance of freedom of speech and press in American history and the colonies’ desire to separate from the oppressive laws that the British placed upon them. However, the amendment’s protections have been questioned by judges and individuals alike when debating a solution to solve censorship issues because of the amount of freedom it provides.

Prior to the institution of English common law, English citizens were ruled by unwritten local customs that were often enforced in an erratic fashion, similarly seen in Germanic cultures in continental Europe. These customs varied from community to community. Following the Norman Conquest of 1066, England began to consolidate power and establish new systems of authority and justice. English common law emerged from the shifting of this power by the new king, William of Normandy. New structures of legal action were established through writs or royal orders. Each had a specific “fix” for a specific wrongdoing. In certain cases, further appeals would have to be made to the king. This gave birth to the Court of Equity or the Court of Chancery. These courts were allowed to apply principles of equity from other forms of law, such as natural law, rather than apply only common law to achieve a fair verdict. In the Middle Ages, English common law coexisted with other forms of law until the seventeenth century. In the seventeenth century, common law triumphed over other types of law in England. Parliament established a permanent check on the king’s power and declared all other systems of law secondary to common law. In the late 1600s, Parliament gained the power to make laws themselves through the English Bill of Rights.

The concept of seditious libel had existed long before the founding of the colonies. Seditious libel is defined as written or spoken words, symbols, pictures, or other forms of communication used to criticize, challenge, or undermine a government or its policies and officials. The English government tightly controlled what was published in newspapers and other news sources since the introduction of the printing press in the fifteenth century. As English common law evolved in the 1600s, a person could be prosecuted under seditious libel laws. The Crown took advantage of this and used it to consolidate power and repress political opponents. Truth in the court was not a defense, and it made the offense worse. Offenders were punished severely. Methods included public whippings and even execution.

Seditious libel laws arrived in the American colonies with the English colonists, as they were a protectorate of the Crown. As time went on, colonists began to show their dissatisfaction with the seditious libel laws. They found that the opportunities for independence in America did not align with the tyrannous laws of England. These views came into conflict in 1735 with the trial of John Peter Zenger. Zenger, a printer who published the New York Weekly Journal, published several articles and advertisements criticizing the appointed governor of New York, William Cosby. Although he had only printed the pieces, Zenger was eventually apprehended and charged with seditious libel. When interrogated, Zenger refused to name the writers of the articles. Crosby not only picked the judges to hear the case but also stacked the first jury with loyalists. Public pressure caused a new jury to be empaneled. The jury had to decide if Zenger had published the statements. Zenger and his lawyer, Andrew Hamilton of Philadelphia, had admitted to publishing the articles. Nevertheless, the jury disregarded the judges’ instructions and acquitted the publisher of all charges within minutes. This was a pivotal moment in the history of the development of the First Amendment because the colonists started to understand that the protection of speech was fundamental to the proper functioning of a democracy.

When the Stamp Act of 1765 was passed by Parliament, the colonists were furious. The Stamp Act taxed printed materials such as newspapers and magazines. The colonists truly began to feel that their rights were being infringed upon by England and began to speak up against these laws. One such action was that of the Boston Gazette, a newspaper that took aim at the British government with criticism of the Prime Minister and Stamp Act. The Sons of Liberty, a group of protestors who included some prominent patriots and were best known for orchestrating the Boston Tea Party, violently opposed and antagonized the British, hanged and burned effigies of numerous officials, and even robbed homes of the wealthy whom they believed were favored by the royal governors. Seditious speech spread like wildfire throughout the cities and colonies. This ranged from pamphlets to cartoons. Many juries who were sympathetic to the Patriot cause did not convict those arrested for unconstitutional speech.

Eventually, after months of protest, violence, and the boycotting of British goods, Parliament repealed the Stamp Act in early 1766, instead replacing it with the Declaratory Act. The Declaratory Act stated that Parliament had the same taxing authority over the American colonies as it did England. The implementation of the Stamp Act, however, contributed to the spirit and unity that was needed for a revolution to form a new nation.

Decades after the Revolutionary War, the framers of the new Constitution were out of Britain’s grasp. However, antifederalists argued that the ratification of the Constitution would put too much power into the hands of the federal government at the expense of the states. They also testified that the new document lacked protection for citizens’ individual rights. The ratification of the Constitution revolved around the adoption of a Bill of Rights that would protect basic liberties by law. The new Bill of Rights was presented to Congress in 1789 and was adopted in 1791; it included the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.

The framers of the Constitution earnestly accepted the freedom of speech and press as the First Amendment and basically dissolved the laws of seditious libel. James Madison, the man who drafted most of the Bill of Rights and eventually became the fourth President, declared that “the censorial power is in the people over the Government, and not in the Government over the people,” broadcasting his argument for the need of the First Amendment to be included in the Constitution (“First Amendment,” History.com).

Free speech and press did not last long in America, as John Adams signed into law the Sedition Act in 1798. The Sedition Act made it illegal to say or publish anything false or slanderous against the government or anyone of status in the government. However, Thomas Jefferson, who was elected president in 1801 by defeating Adams, allowed the law to expire and pardoned those who had been convicted under the Act.

The First Amendment, as written in 1791, states the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” (“First Amendment,” Constitution Annotated). The amendment establishes freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and the right to petition. This also means that the Constitution protects U.S. citizens from censorship by the government and educational institutions, but the protections are not absolute, spurring Supreme Court cases to justify whether the speech is protected by law. Such cases include New York Times Company vs. United States; Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District; and Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, which are valuable to discuss to put the boundaries of the amendment into perspective.

The amendment establishes many types of expression safeguarded under the law. Freedom of speech is guaranteed and protected under the First Amendment. This gives U.S. citizens the right to express themselves freely without the fear of interference by the government. However, certain types of speech, such as hate speech, have been problematic in determining whether it is protected under the law by the Supreme Court. The amendment also protects freedom of the press, which allows Americans to freely express themselves through publication, but libel is not protected. It also established the separation between church and state by prohibiting the government from establishing a state religion and favoring certain religions over others. Lastly, the First Amendment defends the right to peacefully associate or gather with a group of people for political, social, economic, or religious reasons, and allows citizens to sign petitions or file lawsuits.

In 1967, then Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara authorized an undercover study by the government on the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War. Once completed in 1968, the study involved 47 volumes of more than 7,000 pages of information and was labeled classified. In early 1971, Daniel Ellsberg, an employee who had worked on the task, covertly copied the documents and handed them over to reporters of the New York Times. After numerous months of review, the company began publishing the papers on June 13, 1971. Following the publishing of the first three installments, the Nixon Administration obtained a restraining order forbidding the further publication of the documents, citing national security concerns.

The New York Times Company vs. the United States case best exemplifies how the free press can push the envelope against the government. It addressed the violation of the First Amendment by the Nixon Administration in attempting to prevent the New York Times company from publishing documents concerning the United State’s involvement in the Vietnam War. The case became to be known as the “Pentagon Papers Case” because it pertained to a classified Defense Department study. President Richard Nixon claimed that prior restraint was essential to protect national security. The Times appealed to the Supreme Court, holding that the government had not met the required burden to justify prior restraint. The case was argued on June 26, 1971.

The First Amendment forbids restraint of the press by the government. Therefore, there is no edict banning the publication of material by the press. The amendment also does not tolerate restraint based on speculation that consequences may occur because of published information. Only proof from the government that publication can directly cause a corresponding event that can put American forces in danger can back the issuing of a temporary restraining order. Until the government proves a danger, the First Amendment states that no ban may be made.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court nullified the restraining order and allowed the New York Times and other companies to resume printing of such material on June 30, 1971. It was considered a major victory against government censorship because the Times faced a challenging task to convince the Court into allowing the publication of the documents.

In some instances, the First Amendment can also provide protection to students victims of censorship against educational institutions, such as in the case of Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District. In December of 1965, a band of students and parents gathered to discuss ways to protest the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War and show a way for their support of a truce. One decision was for students to wear black armbands with peace symbols printed on them. Officials of the Des Moines Independent Community School District uncovered the plan and swiftly banned the wearing of the armbands. However, students were still allowed to wear political buttons and Iron Crosses. Several students donned black armbands in school and faced suspension.

The families of the students challenged the policy of the schools in the district court, but the lawsuit was dismissed. The students then appealed to the Supreme Court. Petitioned by Mary Beth Tinker, a junior high school student, the case was argued on November 12, 1968. It addressed the policy instituted by the school district that suppressed symbolic protests of opposition to the Vietnam War. The students argued that the armbands did not cause disruption of school functions.

The Supreme Court held that the actions of those participating in the war were completely different from what the armbands represented. The students did not forfeit their First Amendment rights while they were on the school’s property. In order to justify the need for the policy, the district needed evidence that the wearing of the armband would substantially interfere with the functioning of the school. The district’s actions arose from fear of the possibility of interference. The policy was designed to censor opposition to the war in the district. There was no evidence proving the armbands caused a disruption.

In a 7-2 decision, the students won the case on February 24, 1969. The policy was abolished and the suspensions were overturned by the Court. This case is important today because it continues to provide a basis if the rights of protest and speech of students are infringed upon by the school without causing a true disruption.

The rights provided by the First Amendment, however, do not always protect students from the authority of educational institutions, as seen in the Hazelwood School District case. The Spectrum, a school-sponsored student newspaper in Hazelwood East High School in Missouri, wrote an issue of the paper containing content related to teenage pregnancy and the effect of divorce on students. The school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, always reviewed each issue before it was released to the school community. He objected to two of the articles in the May 13, 1983 issue. Reynolds found those articles to be inappropriate and withheld them from publication. Therefore, the students filed suit in federal district court, alleging censorship. Although the district court ruled against the students, Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other school journalists appealed and had the district court decision overturned by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The school district then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The case of Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier was argued before the Supreme Court on October 13, 1987. It discussed whether the principal’s decision in deleting two of the articles from the May 13, 1983 issue violated the First Amendment rights of the students. Some Justices sided with the students. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. cited Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent Community School District, stating that students did not lose their rights to free speech and press when they stepped on school property.

In a 5-3 decision, the Court decided in favor of the Hazelwood School District on January 13, 1988. The Court held that the First Amendment did not obligate the school to promote certain types of speech. It opined that the school must also be able to set high standards of student speech spread under their sponsorship. It also held that the school retained the right to refuse speech that affected civilized order. The school’s administration maintained the right to govern the content and style of student speech that was included in the school’s expressive activities, such as the newspaper. Therefore, the school did not violate the student’s rights when certain types of speech were censored as long as their actions were related to teaching concerns. Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier set a new model for school-sponsored speech, contrary to student-initiated speech for educational institutions across the United States.

The First Amendment is still one of, if not, the most important amendments to ever be ratified, and it still holds firm today. Without the freedom of speech, press, or protest, the United States of America would become a censor-crazy nation, depriving its citizens of rights that are basic tenets of democracy. The First Amendment touches each and every American. Citizens are able to freely go and protest against the government or talk politics over the dinner table without fear of punishment. They are allowed to practice whatever religion they choose and petition for better working conditions at their place of employment. Individuals are allowed to criticize the government. With this privilege, Americans are also expected to defend their rights whenever infringed upon — it is what makes the United States of America a beacon of freedom, one that the entire world sees.

First Amendment rights are vital to the functioning of a democracy. Before the establishment of the United States of America, Britain used seditious libel laws to deal with the problem. The colonists despised this and protested against it. After the establishment of the United States, the Founding Fathers brought forth the need for the freedom of speech, press, protest, and rights to religion and petition. If not for the First Amendment, the citizens would be oppressed by laws that would forbid them to voice their thoughts — both spoken and written — without the fear of reprisal. The First Amendment allows American citizens to express who they truly are.

Under the first amendment of the United States Constitution, individuals are granted the right of freedom to speech amongst other rights and liberties. However, specifically for the right of freedom of speech, it follows in the Constitution as “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” (“4.2 Securing Basic Freedoms – American Government 2e,” OpenStax). With this broad statement encouraging individuals to share their thoughts and opinions without fear that the government will act to restrict it, it is not surprising that there has been great debate about the extensiveness of this right and furthermore, many interpretations of what this right means. For instance, while many people may believe that this right does have restrictions in certain areas and at specific times, some people still tend to believe that this amendment protects all forms of speech. However, Congress has acknowledged this controversy in some ways as they have expressed over time what forms of speech are not protected by the Constitution. Some of the forms of speech that are not protected as free speech include, defamation of character, also known as libel or slander, perjury, “fighting words” or threats, along with sedition, forms of obscenity such as those that express sexual information, and speech that includes copyright violations infringement. While this list greatly covers many areas, the expression or promotion of “fake news” is not covered and therefore has been deemed as permissible or protected under the first amendment. Still, the counterargument that fake news should not be protected greatly prevails, especially in today’s times where social media has made the spread of fake news and false information extremely easy to share and gain recognition.

According to a study shared by ABC News, “It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1,500 people.” In all, seeing how quickly and more likely information that lacks factuality will spread to people and the negative consequences it can have on public safety, challenging the “general welfare” that the Constitution states it will promote, I do not believe that fake news should be protected as free speech. In the first place, I believe it is important to establish some definition of what fake news is. Broadly, fake news according to a scholarly article by Harvard University is news stories or articles that although “mimic” the content of credible news stories, they lack the processes that ensure that the information presented is accurate, therefore, increasing the risk that the information shared is falsified. Yet, despite that these news stories or articles lack credibility, they nonetheless still have the ability to greatly manipulate their readers. Additionally, while some may find the previous definition of fake news straightforward, it is still a term that can be confused or misinterpreted for other issues that appear similar in some aspects. Therefore, it is also important to separate what fake news is not. Fake news is not “unintentional mistakes in reporting” or opinionated biased pieces that do not share false information.

Furthermore, despite Former President Donald Trump using the term towards known news sources such as CNN, and The New York Times that share stories that may contradict his beliefs about such things as the crowd turnout at his inauguration, news cannot be classified as fake because the reader does not agree or approve with what is being said. In all, fake news should not be interpreted by people as what satisfies their beliefs but rather on the merit of the factuality of the information being presented and the intentions of those who present it. While already seeing how the topic of fake news has been of discussion in recent years even by people of perceived credibility, fake news is not an issue that has just recently emerged. Taken from the Misinformation Age, one is able to see just how early the issue of fake news goes back and importantly, how rapidly it could spread among populations even before the addition of modern technology. Early in the reading, the reader is taken back to the mid-14th century and exposed to the fake news story known as “The Vegetable Lamb of Tartary.” This story focuses on the belief that plants in areas such as Asia Minor and India bore animals, specifically lambs, and although harmless in the text, it already illustrated the danger that fake news has in its spread, its ability to affect everyone of all educational backgrounds and its ability to persist even in the face of no evidence. For example, it was noted how even scholars believed this story, and with exclusively their personal claims to go on, the story was still believed by the public and persisted for around 400 years.

Fast forward to a more recent and harmful event covered in the text known as “Pizzagate,” this story included political figures such as Hillary Clinton and claimed that they were tied to a child-trafficking ring with one of their locations being at a Pizzeria in Washington D.C. With it now being 2016 and social media quite established, the clearly known fake news story took off online with sources such as Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook sharing this story nationally and internationally to foreign countries. Yet, other than social media now being involved, a major difference between the two fake news stories is that this one very much involved a serious issue that if not accurately addressed by credible sources could lead to many serious consequences for those involved, which it did. Still, while both fake news stories did not lead to any deaths, the current issue of COVID-19 proved differently for the seriousness and harmful effects of allowing fake news or misinformation to persist and be protected as free speech. COVID-19, a deadly virus that has affected the lives of millions and taken the lives of over 700,000, particularly in the United States has been unavoidable on both social media websites and the news around the world. With its quick emergence around the world, people were lost on whether this virus was a hoax, if there were any ways that they could protect themselves, and if the recently approved vaccines for the virus were truly safe. Although public officials and esteemed doctors continued to educate people around the world, people still had uncertainties and so, with more time than ever to search the web, many turned to do the research themselves and unfortunately have fallen into the many traps of fake information that had taken over the internet; an “infodemic.”

Therefore, any news concerning this topic is important because if told without factuality, the consequences for those who believe the information could be fatal. For example, early in the emergence of COVID-19 in America when the death rate from the virus was still in the low numbers, a host from Fox Business Network pushed the fake news story of the virus being a democratic scam to remove then President Trump. Although her claims lacked any factual evidence, having a news reporter share such a fake story could have possibly delayed many individuals who watch this news station from realizing the seriousness of this virus and taking measures to protect themselves. In all, this possibly increases the number of cases in America. Adversely, those who see the virus as extremely serious and yearn to find solutions to this issue, have also been negatively influenced by fake stories from online where people have stated to have a “cure” for COVID-19 or treatments for this issue. However, unfortunately, in this case, a direct link to death was found. An article by The Guardian from last year shed light on how fake news could have led a couple in their 60s to ingest a product that they found within their homes that contained chloroquine in an attempt to help prevent themselves from acquiring the virus. Although serious complications were stated to occur immediately for both individuals, the husband sadly died from the ingestion of this product. Nevertheless, even with the previous examples of “Pizzagate” and “miracle cures treatments” for COVID-19 that proved fatal in some instances, the many people who argue that the first amendment does not mention or cover any aspect of “fake news” being unprotected, they are essentially correct. However, they must also recognize how the interpretation of free speech has again, changed over time from when the Constitution was first written and how one of the Constitution’s main goals is to ensure the general welfare of the public which fake news does not.

In all, the right to free speech under the first amendment is in no manner absolute. As covered in the introduction, there are forms of speech or expression that are not protected under the first amendment and therefore, stand vulnerable to the interference and control of the government if they cross certain barriers. Take, for instance, the early Supreme Court Case in 1942 known as, Chaplinsky v New Hampshire which illustrated how “fighting words” were not protected as free speech. Before this case, much like in the arguments of “fake news,” people may have believed that despite the threat that these words have to the well-being of others, it was protected as free speech. Overall, this is to say, one must not rely on the notion that all speech is protected under the first amendment and understand that the government can institute restrictions for this right when it comes to ensuring the well-being or general welfare of the public. Altogether, the right to free speech gives people the right to express themselves, even if it is controversial. However, I believe fake news is more than controversial speech or expression, it is a deliberate threat to the public’s safety, a threat to the public’s ability to decipher between fake and factual news, and a threat to people understanding the importance of honesty as the people who promote fake news may escape legal penalties because this issue has yet to be excluded from the right of free speech in the United States. For the public’s safety, reflecting again on the types of speech that the government does not protect, fake news has one major characteristic in common with many of these forms of speech and that is, it has the ability to harm. Fake news and theories have the ability to ignite anger in individuals, push lawless actions, and overall, make many people suffer whether that is mentally, emotionally, or physically. For example, I believe I am able to support this statement with the major fake news story of “Pizzagate.” As Edgar Welch read the many fake stories of a child-trafficking ring at Comet Ping Pong pizzeria, a completely baseless story, the story still strongly infuriated Welch to the point where he pursued the pizzeria in D.C. with an assault weapon to investigate the situation further. Despite that there were no fatalities from the matter, it has been learned that Welch had communicated to his friend beforehand that he was willing to, according to New York’s Daily News.“sacrifice the lives of a few for the lives of many.”. From this, I believe it can be taken that this statement by Welch illustrated how even though he did not harm anyone physically, he was prepared and willing to take the lives of the workers in that restaurant to save captive children who weren’t even there. Furthermore, it is worth noting as well that before Welch made his public move, the pizzeria, as well as its neighboring businesses, had started to receive violent threats via calls and social media early on by followers of this story, not only stating how they would harm the owners of the businesses but also their staff. “Pizzagate” was and still is a clear definition that fake news has real costs for the world.

In conclusion, under the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution people are granted the liberty of free speech, fostering a democracy where individuals can freely share beliefs and ideas with others, even if it may be controversial. However, Supreme Court cases have served to represent that this right is not absolute and for many forms of speech such as, “fighting words,” obscenity, and slander or libel, are not protected under the first amendment. Fake news, not a new public issue, but one that is truly gaining momentum over the years with the advancements of social media, is news that can greatly manipulate its readers through its resemblance to factual news but in actuality, lack any sort of truth. While people argue that this issue should be allowed and protected under the first amendment, I put forth that fake news embodies the issues seen with other forms of speech that have been deemed as exclusions from this right, such as “fighting words” and that is, fake news through its influence has the ability to cause harm to the public, going against the Constitution’s mission to promote the public’s well-being. Therefore, I do not believe that it should be protected as free speech under the first amendment. Time and time again fake news has shown to be a weapon to cloud the judgment of individuals, guiding them to believe fake information, and threatening the public’s safety because of it. I believe that it is important to stop protecting this form of speech as free speech for the sake of helping to keep people safe.

The Framers were very important people in our history. They were known as visionaries and because of them, they designed the constitution in which it addresses the specific challenges the nation went up against during their lifetime. The Constitution set the groundwork for establishing the principles of laws, rights, and actions that would help us build as a nation to the end of time. The Constitution has a lot of important ideas involving the nation and making sure it is safe. But the framers didn’t come up with all their important ideas on the spot, they had influences that resulted in the making of the constitution.

The three main influences the framers had on the Constitution were Aristotle, the Bill of Rights of 1689, and John Locke. One of the earliest influences the framers had on the constitution was Aristotle, the Greek Philosopher. They were influenced by him because Aristotle wrote a collection of essays about the government where that talked about the “right” kind of government. It involved common goods and democracy, not self-interest. You could think of Aristotle’s writing as the first small draft of the Constitution. Another major influence was the Bill of Rights of 1689. The Bill of Rights of 1689 was about giving civil rights and liberties to individuals like the freedom of speech, press, and religion. This was a heavy influence on the Constitution and was added to the Constitution as the first 10 amendments.

Another major influence was from one person, John Locke. John Locke was an English philosopher who was commonly known as the ‘Father of Liberalism’. In his mind, he believed that the government must protect its citizen’s rights which consisted of their life, liberty, and property. But John Locke’s ideas and views not only influenced the Constitution but also the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers were taking influence from two English philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed the very opposite of Locke. Hobbs thought that the government should have full control over their citizens. Whereas Locke believed the government should have no control over its citizens and instead give them unalienable rights and freedom.

Locke’s political ideas were liked by the founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, who was heavily influenced by Locke when writing the Declaration of Independence. The design of the Constitution solved two problems which were how to unify one nation and how to prevent tyranny. This is where James Madison wrote the essay called “Federalist 10” whose purpose was to respond to the argument that a large republic won’t survive. Its goal was to devise a republic in which a majority of citizens would be unable to tyrannize the minority. He believed that it wouldn’t fail because of how well it was written. However, there were problems with this essay. The main problem was factions which Madison saw as “several citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” (Lecture) This means that not everyone is going to have the same opinion. And from what we know about collective action problems, it seems to be true.

The Declaration of Independence are important articles that ensure our independence from Great Britain. This document will describe who adopted the Declaration of Independence, what the Founding Fathers created, a summary of the Articles, and how the Constitution affects the world today.

It was written by Thomas Jefferson; he wrote it because they wanted to announce their independence from Britain. They also wrote it because they wanted to be an independent nation and were able to confirm their alliance with France. It was written back in 1776. They wrote the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. When the Founding Fathers made the Constitution, they established three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial). They also created the checks and balance systems to ensure that no one has too much power.

Article I talks about assigning responsibility for making laws to the legislative branch. Congress is divided in two houses: the House of Representative and the Senate. Congress had a compromise between large states. It also talks about the judicial branch and their power, and Section I talks about that it should be vested into one supreme case. Section II mentions that no person shall be a representative until they’re at least of 25 years and has been a citizen for 7 years or more.

Article II says the details of the executive branch. As well as the offices of the president and vice president. They also lay down the ground rules when electing a president. It is important that a citizen going for president must be at least 35 years of age, and a natural born citizen of the United States. They also take an oath when becoming a president.

Article III says that the federal judges are appointed for life unless they commit a serious crime. The article is much shorter compared to the other articles. They should be vested in one supreme court. The judicial power shall also extend to all cases, law, and equity.

Article IV outlined the ways of power. If a new law is created, then it must respect the other laws of the other states. Congress can pass federal laws regarding the way states honor other states and records. Full credit should be given in each state towards the public acts and records.

Article V explains about the amendments process, it’s a very difficult compared to the process for making laws. Whenever two-thirds of both houses decide that it’ll be necessary. They will give the amendments to the Constitution or call a convention.

Article VI states that federal law is supreme, or higher than the state and local laws. That would mean if any state would object with a specific federal law, then the federal law would take precedence. It also talks that debts contracted and engagements entered shall be valid against the Constitution.

Article VII had described the ratification process for the Constitution. However, it required nine states to enact the Constitution.

The Constitution says a lot about where power goes in each branch, it makes each responsibility towards one or the other. It is not overdoing it with too much power. It also talks about how important the federal law is and how it is higher than state/local laws, and when new laws are created that they must respect other state laws and records. After all, these are very important Articles that are taken very seriously. It also talks about the ratification process and the amendment process. Our amendments give us the freedom and independence that cannot be changed. It is very important that they follow it as well as the Constitution. It covers over the other branches and explains checks and balances (how powers are equal between each group is needed). It also talks about how new laws are passed, what they go through in order to be considered passed. Otherwise, they would be failed. It’s very complex series of articles, but it means well and in the end it’s how people are elected and their powers. Federal judges are chosen for life, they do not resign from their position and the only way that they could ever resign would be if they made a very serious crime. After all, the Constitution is the ground laws, it is our authority and it also details state rights as well.

The Constitution affects us differently today because things are changing more than how they were years ago, new laws have been put down compared to how it originally was. It’s also changed our lives because now we can say things freely, have firearms, go to church, get to vote if you’re 18 or older, protest, etc. You are also required to pay taxes and those things affect people now days. We are an independent nation. We have the freedom that people didn’t have a long time ago and other ways it’s affecting us is that there was a new constitution back in 1789 it was a stronger centralized government. It can hurt us, and it can also be very helpful to us. It can hurt us since new laws can easily be passed. We may not always agree with whichever law gets passed by Congress. However, there has been laws that have been declined before. It’s very important that the laws that are created are helping the citizens and not destroying everything. The Constitution is still highly respected now days and it is still being used as Congress still follows it, as well as the citizens. The amendments have not changed much since the beginning of it. If anything, nothing can change it, not even Congress can mess with our ‘God given rights’. It is something all citizens are born with and it cannot be ignored. The Constitution is how we function as a society, as a whole nation. Without it we would be lost, and it would be left towards the government, Congress, etc., for them to decide what laws we would have.

In conclusion, I have explained a summary of the Declaration of Independence, gone over who made the Constitution, where it was made and why. I have also explained how it affects us today.

Works Cited

1. U.S. Constitution Remains Relevant 230 Years Later, http://www.ohiohouse.gov/doug-green/press/us-constitution-remains-relevant-230-years-later.
2. Anonymous. “Why Is the U.S. Constitution Important?” Charter College, 14 Sept. 2016, http://www.chartercollege.edu/news-hub/10-ways-us-constitution-affects-your-life.
3. “The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription”. National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript.
4. “The Constitution: What Does It Say?” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, http://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution/what-does-it-say.

The Declaration of Independence was written because people were escaping King George the Third, who was a tyrant and oppressed his people in Great Britain. The people escaped to what is now America. Later, the DOI was created on July 4, 1776. The hope of these founders was to create a better nation with values and ideals to improve government as opposed to King George’s ruling. The DOI lists all the bad things the tyrant has committed which hurt domestic issues, such as oppressing and enslaving people, and made wars just because he felt like it. The United States Constitution was later signed on September 17, 1787 and further improved the DOI. The amendments of the Constitution promised the country to fix domestic issues and foreign policy for the welfare of the country. Our founders paved the way to a better society with freedom and justice for all. But things did not go the way our founders expected it.

Domestic issues that people suffered in the times before the DOI was really a form of extreme oppression. People could not vote because the king made them give up their right of representation in the legislature (DOI, Bullet 3). The Constitution also promised everybody the right to be represented (Article I, Section 4, Clause 1). This worked for white people, but not for black people who were slaves in 1788. African Americans did not get to be represented or vote until 1870 and this was after the Civil War, April 12, 1861 which they participated in and gave up their lives for this country. It was a long struggle for them to get the right to vote. Also, Ron Grossman says in his article, ‘Illinois Women Win the Right to Vote’, that women in Illinois could not take part in the voting process until June 26, 1913, which was a big victory for women, and this was the start for women to vote in other states.

Slavery was another domestic issue that the DOI and Constitution both tried to improve or get rid of for the welfare of the people. In the DOI, the king would capture people out at sea, even those born in the kingdom, and make them slaves to fight and kill in wars for him (DOI, Bullet 26). The Constitution talks about ‘free persons’ meaning freedom from tyranny and King George the Third, but these free people were white men (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3). Slavery was an issue that people in King George’s times suffered from and also after the constitution which allowed slavery to be legal. Slavery was normal starting from 1788, but later Abraham Lincoln enacted the Thirteenth Amendment to abolish slavery in this country in 1865 (Concise Summary, para 1). The Constitution was then improved but there was still slavery in the south that black people still were suffering from, which was a new oppression, just as horrific as slavery, called racism. This happened after the emancipation proclamation was passed. According to Ronald E. Butchart in his article, ‘Black Hope’, white people intimidated blacks to prevent them from getting an education in order to take control of their minds. This was due to white supremacy and they did not want blacks to be better than they were. Blacks wanted an education but instead got their schools burnt, suffered violence, got shot and/or lynched, and both students and teachers were targeted (Butchart, para 1). This racism was horrible when the Ku Klux Klan was founded during the reconstruction era. Later in the Civil Rights movement in 1964, the horrible violence was over, especially the lynching, but there was still racism in the ‘Long Sixties’, blacks were still oppressed. Malcom X says in his article, ‘The Ballot or the Bullet’ that they suffered “economic exploitation, social degradation, and political oppression” (para 3). This was a time when black people marched, protested in the streets, and physically fought to get equal rights. This oppression is something that I believe the DOI intended to abolish for the good of the people, especially the Constitution when it guaranteed people their rights to freedom.

The DOI, as well as the Constitution, say that war and foreign policy should be planned and necessary. The DOI says that the king would bring “large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death” (Bullet, 25) and “declaring war against us”, meaning its people (Bullet ,23). All the oppressed citizens wanted was freedom from the cruel tyrant. The Constitution says in Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, that we can: “declare war, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water”. This of course, was to be a legislative power to be “vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” (Constitution, Article I, Section 1). I believe that what our founders were aiming for was to protect ourselves from foreign attacks. Again, our leaders have gotten into wars, such as World War I and Vietnam, not considering the Constitution and its meaning. For example, Kendrick Clements says in his article ‘Woodrow Wilson and World War I’ that in this war, President Wilson spoke of the neutrality policy, where we would not get into war, when others fought like Germany torpedoing British merchant ships. But with the ‘strict accountability’ letter sent by the U.S. it was viewed as a threat by the Germans (Kendrick, para 29). The Germans were just unhappy that trade was not fair, and they were excluded. After the Germans again torpedoed the Lusitania, President Wilson acted by going into war with Germany, a decision he made without seeking advice and citing that Germany violated the strict accountability warning (Kendrick, para 58). All along, Germany was reacting to the British merchant ships who were arming themselves looking more like military ships and gave Germany a reason to feel threatened by them. Better trade relations with Germany and the president seeking better advice I think would have avoided this war.

Another example was the Vietnam War which we entered in 1965. We entered this war because of the ‘containment policy’ and ‘Americanization’ which was to stop the spread of communism, an ideal or belief that did not really threaten us, like a military strike against us would. Also, according to Fredrick Logevall’s article ‘Lyndon Johnson and Vietnam’, it was President Johnson and bad mistakes that ultimately got us involved in this war. Vietnam wanted to enter into talks to avoid war, but Johnson ignored it. Johnson was just elected president and he wanted to keep his promise, to look good, to protect against communism. Johnson rejected the plea of several advisors, as George C. Herring put it, “he waged war in ‘cold blood’” (Logevall, para 26). Congress was against it but just went along with the president. In other words, the president acted like a tyrant, like King George the Third.

In conclusion, these two important documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, have shaped this country to what it is today. It took us a long time to stop racism, but thanks to the bill of rights, it is not happening as bad as then. The wars we have been involved in were caused by individuals who acted putting their own beliefs before fully understanding the consequences. I think that we are a better nation now and we are still learning from our history; I really hope so for the sake of our future.

America is a society like no other. A free and brave country. President John F. Kennedy once mentioned to us that America is a wonderful place because we are all here as one nation and we all stand together. He said “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty”. America is great in so many ways but the most important are that we have extremely important laws, a really good education system, and we have one of the best militaries.

We are so blessed because we live in the United States. America has an abundance of laws such as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and so many more. Some people ask “Is America really free”, and the answer to that is yes. Our country’s national anthem, created by Francis Scott Key states that America is “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. The Constitution is a set of principles made by the government in the US, which was introduced in 1789 and now has twenty-seven amendments. My 8th grade Social Studies teacher once told me that our country would fall apart without these laws. The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments in the United States Constitution and were ratified in 1791. These laws guarantee so much. Assembly, speech, religion, press, and petition are just a few things that these laws guarantee. In so many other countries people are unjustly not free. So many people try to come to America to be free because America is just so much safer and better than other countries. America is the best because you can feel safer than you would in other places around the world.

Education is a necessity in order for success in the United States. America has such a substantial schooling system. Massachusetts, my home state, actually has the best education in America. The public and private schools here have exceptionally intelligent students. Numerous students strive for good grades which are not the easiest to get with some of our curriculum. So many jobs need bright individuals to do hard work. In America we have some of the smartest colleges in the world. These colleges are called Ivy League schools and are so hard to get into. You have to be a very talented and smart person to get into a school like this. America has been ranked one of the best schooling states in the world. The test scores here are so high with most students getting in the proficient range. Getting a truly superior education is a blessing and will unquestionably help every single person in the United States. Multiple people from other countries come to America just to get a really good education. America is a community with high expectations and high academic achievement.

America’s military was founded on power. All of the people in the military that support our country are more than words can say. Our military is very impressive due to our many different branches. There are so many branches of the military such as the army, air force, navy, marines, and coast guard. Our US army service branch fights on land for land warfare. Our air force fights from planes in the air and makes sure we are all secure. The navy serves in the sea and makes sure we maintain the freedom of the seas. Our marines are one of the best fighting groups in the world, the marines serve on the navy ships, bases, and will protect anywhere they need to. The US coast guard is the department of homeland security and protects us with laws and guarding our coastline. I don’t know what we would do without it. Our Veterans and our serving troops are so important because they fought and continue to fight for our country. We honor our serving troops and our Veterans so much. Our military has saved us in so many situations. America has won many wars because we have a really strong military. Most militaries are strong and powerful but our military is one of the best.

America is actually one of the safest places to live. I would never want to leave my freedom behind by going to another country. I plan on staying here in the United States for the rest of my life. Growing up here in America is a miracle. So many things should change in other countries so they can be just as great as America. I wish every place on earth was just as free as America. Many places have made it so far over the course of many years and will hopefully keep progressing. America is great because of our laws, our really good school systems, and our military.

America is a society like no other. A free and brave country. President John F. Kennedy once mentioned to us that America is a wonderful place because we are all here as one nation and we all stand together. He said “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty”. America is great in so many ways but the most important are that we have extremely important laws, a really good education system, and we have one of the best militaries.

We are so blessed because we live in the United States. America has an abundance of laws such as the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and so many more. Some people ask “Is America really free”, and the answer to that is yes. Our country’s national anthem, created by Francis Scott Key states that America is “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. The Constitution is a set of principles made by the government in the US, which was introduced in 1789 and now has twenty-seven amendments. My 8th grade Social Studies teacher once told me that our country would fall apart without these laws. The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments in the United States Constitution and were ratified in 1791. These laws guarantee so much. Assembly, speech, religion, press, and petition are just a few things that these laws guarantee. In so many other countries people are unjustly not free. So many people try to come to America to be free because America is just so much safer and better than other countries. America is the best because you can feel safer than you would in other places around the world.

Education is a necessity in order for success in the United States. America has such a substantial schooling system. Massachusetts, my home state, actually has the best education in America. The public and private schools here have exceptionally intelligent students. Numerous students strive for good grades which are not the easiest to get with some of our curriculum. So many jobs need bright individuals to do hard work. In America we have some of the smartest colleges in the world. These colleges are called Ivy League schools and are so hard to get into. You have to be a very talented and smart person to get into a school like this. America has been ranked one of the best schooling states in the world. The test scores here are so high with most students getting in the proficient range. Getting a truly superior education is a blessing and will unquestionably help every single person in the United States. Multiple people from other countries come to America just to get a really good education. America is a community with high expectations and high academic achievement.

America’s military was founded on power. All of the people in the military that support our country are more than words can say. Our military is very impressive due to our many different branches. There are so many branches of the military such as the army, air force, navy, marines, and coast guard. Our US army service branch fights on land for land warfare. Our air force fights from planes in the air and makes sure we are all secure. The navy serves in the sea and makes sure we maintain the freedom of the seas. Our marines are one of the best fighting groups in the world, the marines serve on the navy ships, bases, and will protect anywhere they need to. The US coast guard is the department of homeland security and protects us with laws and guarding our coastline. I don’t know what we would do without it. Our Veterans and our serving troops are so important because they fought and continue to fight for our country. We honor our serving troops and our Veterans so much. Our military has saved us in so many situations. America has won many wars because we have a really strong military. Most militaries are strong and powerful but our military is one of the best.

America is actually one of the safest places to live. I would never want to leave my freedom behind by going to another country. I plan on staying here in the United States for the rest of my life. Growing up here in America is a miracle. So many things should change in other countries so they can be just as great as America. I wish every place on earth was just as free as America. Many places have made it so far over the course of many years and will hopefully keep progressing. America is great because of our laws, our really good school systems, and our military.