Civil Rights Essay Research Paper The Constitution
Civil Rights Essay, Research PaperThe Constitution Protects the Civil Rights of Americans but once more the Fundamental law does protect the civil rights of Americans. Even though some Torahs are passed that violate the civil rights of people in the United States, the Supreme Court corrects these mistakes.
The instances reviewed here ask if it is all right to compose and mandate supplication in schools, whether the decease punishment is Constitutional, and how much privateness is given to the American people. In the undermentioned Supreme Court instances, the reader will happen that the determinations made are Constitutional and guarantee that the civil rights of Americans are protected. The First Amendment to the Constitution forbids the authorities signifier back uping faith.
In the Supreme Court instance, Engle v.. Vitale, a New York school system composed a supplication and forced kids to pray in the forenoons at school. This action by the school system clearly violates the & # 8220 ; no constitution & # 8221 ; clause of the First Amendment, which states, & # 8220 ; Congress shall do no jurisprudence esteeming an constitution of faith & # 8230 ; & # 8221 ; The Supreme Court ruled six to one that it was unconstitutional for schools to compose and mandate supplication. The Engle determination was a good determination. Since the authorities now had no say in how school kids prayed, the rights of minority spiritual groups were protected.
This determination ensures that pupils in schools across the state will non hold to travel against their faith to delight the authorities. Because this determination ensures the people & # 8217 ; s right to idolize in the manner that they choose, American society as a whole benefits from this determination. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits & # 8220 ; cruel and unusual punishment. & # 8221 ; In the instance, Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that the decease punishment was non unconstitutional every bit long as it was non randomly applied. This instance was accurately read because the authors of the Bill of Rights did non believe that the decease punishment constituted & # 8220 ; cruel and unusual punishment. & # 8221 ; They believed that & # 8220 ; cruel and unusual penalty & # 8221 ; was penalty that inflicted inordinate hurting on the convicted. Since the decease punishment is humanist, it does non represent & # 8220 ; cruel and unusual penalty & # 8221 ; and is hence acceptable to utilize as a signifier of penalty.
The Gregg determination was a good determination. The decease penalty is a just and merely penalty for those that have committed capital discourtesies. Although some might reason that it is a revenge-based penalty, it is merely making to the convicted what he did to his victim, although in a manner much less painful. Because the decease punishment is humanist, doing about no hurting to the individual being executed, it is a just and allowable penalty for those that deserve it.
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution allows citizens more rights that those listed in the Constitution. It can be inferred that the authors of the Bill of Rights meant for privateness to be included in this amendment. In Connecticut, there was a jurisprudence that forbid the usage and distribution of information about preventives.
This jurisprudence was overruled by the Supreme Court in the instance, Griswold v. Connecticut, when it ruled that the jurisprudence violated Constitutionally protected privateness. The authorities merely has the right to ban information if it endangers national security or if it is considered obscene. Since the usage and distribution of information about preventives does non fall under any of these classs, it is non Constitutionally correct for the authorities to go against people’s privateness in the manner that it did in the Connecticut jurisprudence.
The Griswold determination was a good determination. Because people deserve and are Constitutionally given privateness, it seems unlogical that a province would do a jurisprudence like the 1 that was made in Connecticut. This type of action can be interpreted as a province non esteeming a person’s right to privateness, which is non merely unconstitutional, but incorrectly.
Because the Supreme Court abolished the Connecticut jurisprudence prohibiting the usage and distribution of information about preventives, the people of the United States can rest assured that their right to privateness is being protected. In the predating Supreme Court instances, the Justices that heard the instances upheld the significances of the Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights. The determinations all agreed with what the authors of the Bill of Rights thought when they were composing the Bill of Rights. Due to these determinations, the significances of the rights given to Americans have grown clearer than they were earlier, and will go on to make so every bit long as they are being interpreted by the Supreme Court, and other tribunals in the American justness31f