Constitutional Amendment Essay

Total Length: 3092 words ( 10 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 10

Page 1 of 10

The First Amendment

The First Amendment states that “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.” This Amendment basically protects free speech, among other rights—but in recent years it has been necessary to define the parameters of free speech, particularly when it comes to politics. One of the more recent cases of this is with respect to the creation of the Super Political Action Committee (PAC). In the news article by Samuelson (2012) it is shown how the Supreme Court is muddling the Constitution by allowing the formation of Super PACs, which rather than serving as an affirmation of First Amendment rights are actually more of a stifling of those rights—yet the Courts do not see it that way.

The Super PAC came about thanks to the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission Supreme Court ruling—this ruling allowed corruption to lead into the political system by giving more weight to corporations to influence elections. The Citizens United case centered on the non-profit Citizens United, which sought to air a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton, who was running for president during the 2008 Democratic primary elections. The Federal Election Committee ruled that this would be a violation of federal law, which stipulated that corporations could not engage in electioneering campaigning within a month of a primary election or two months of a general election. Citizens United sued and the Supreme Court sided with the non-profit saying that to prevent the corporation from doing so was a violation of First Amendment Rights. The First Amendment is a crucial right, but this case shows how it can be twisted and used for political purposes.

The Second Amendment

In the U.S., people have a Constitutional right to bear arms. This right is protected by the Second Amendment, which states that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” While the justification for the Second Amendment may seem outdated to some, it is honored and celebrated by others who believe that part of what makes America unique among other countries in the world is that its citizens have never been denied the right to bear arms. Indeed, among all modern nations, the U.S. stands out for its gun laws for a number of reasons: people want to feel safe and they know they have the right to carry and bear arms according to the Constitution; in other countries, like the UK, it is illegal to own a gun. Thus, America is unique.

Following the Parkland school shooting, many called for the 2nd Amendment to be abolished. In his news article, Hsieh (2018) states the opposite: “Millions of Americans legally carry a firearm every day, and most cite self-defense as their primary reason. The overwhelming majority of the time, those guns are never drawn in anger. But innocent civilians can and do sometimes use their guns in self-defense. Any discussion of firearms policy must acknowledge the lives saved by legal use of guns.” The gist of Hsieh’s article is that guns can be used for good purposes and not every gun owner is a villain. This article is valuable for putting the context of the Second Amendment in the right light. Americans have the right to bear arms—and that right is important to people and they do not feel it is outdated. If anything they feel it is more important now than ever because no one feels safe anymore.

The Fourth Amendment

With the rise of the Digital Age, this question of searching and seizing the personal property of people has been questioned in a number of court cases, especially those involving wiretapping, confiscating hard drives, or surveillance via FISA courts. Though these activities are conducted in order to obtain evidence so that the target might then be aptly accused of a crime, the Fourth Amendment is clear about persons being accused, first, and then detained or searched—not the other way around. Over time, this concept has been inverted and the necessity to prevent crime for going undetected or from letting criminals escape without being caught has allowed this inversion to take place. This is the case today with the RussiaGate issue that has plagued the Trump presidency. The Trump Administration says that the Obama Administration had no legal standing to authorize wiretaps on Trump Tower and that the Courts had no legal standing to allow for this either as the intelligence used to justify the invasion of privacy was based on a bogus narrative that the intelligence community knew to be bogus.
This is all reported in the news story by Investors Business Daily (2018), which discusses the illegality of the wiretapping and the scandal that it has caused for the American public over the past two years.

The Fourth Amendment was meant to protect citizens from undue searches and seizures and was an important addition to the Constitution, because those who are detained, searched, and have their property seized are essentially being accused of some criminal act and are thus treated by the state. However, there is a protocol that must be in place in order for police or the state to act in this manner. They cannot simply stop whomever they wish or conduct searches in a meaningless manner, as Constitutional law forbids it.

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment directly addresses and identifies the rights of the accused by stating that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or…

[…… parts of this paper are missing, click here to view the entire document ]

…the income tax: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Today, however, more than half the population wants to end this Amendment. It is possibly the most hated Amendment of all time. As the article by Rasmussen (2019) shows, “today, 52% of voters favor repealing the 16th Amendment to end the federal income tax. A ScottRasmussen.com national survey found that such a repeal is favored by 62% of independent voters, 56% of Republicans, and 42% of Democrats.” However, Rasmussen (2019) shows that while the majority of Americans are in favor of repealing this Amendment, the likelihood of that happening is virtually zero, as it is exceedingly difficult to change the Constitution. Likewise, the federal government is not going to vote to eliminate its main source of funding each year, according to the article.

So this is an Amendment that the Founding Fathers surely did not anticipate. That it was passed the same year the Federal Reserve was established should indicate something about what was going on in the country and who the nation’s leaders were at the time. The 16th Amendment was passed so as to allow the federal government to get even bigger and more bureaucratic, which it could not do without regularly income streams, which the income tax allowed it to do.

The 18th Amendment

If there was one Amendment more hated than the 16th Amendment, it was the 18th Amendment. It legally banned the manufacturing and sale of alcohol in the whole United States. No one could legally purchase a drink anymore—which turned country into a nation of scofflaws during the 1920s, also known as the Lawless Decade, as everyone had to go underground to get their booze. They huddled in speakeasies and flouted the law—because no one really wanted to stop drinking. Carrie Nation and the teetotalers managed to get this Amendment passed, and it would eventually be repealed by the 21st Amendment—but not before the rise of the criminal underworld thanks to all the bootlegging and profits that that 18th Amendment allowed them to accrue. The criminal class basically came into existence in a big way because of this ill-thought out Amendment.

The news article by DeFelitta (2019) focuses more on the repeal of the 18th Amendment rather than on the good things that it brought about during the more than a decade of its existence. For that reason, the title of the article is “Cheers to the 21st Amendment,” and the article was published on National Beer Day to get the point across that the 18th Amendment will go down in history as the worst Amendment to the Constitution ever imaginable. The article discusses how it was finally repealed and why this was a good thing.

The 18th Amendment will probably never be revived as it was passed at a time when the nation was trying to “sober” up and get….....

Show More ⇣


     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


Related Essays

19th Amendment

led to Amendment XIX being proposed and introduced into the Congress in the year 1878. The recommended constitutional amendment continued to be a controversial matter for more than four decades -- a period that witnessed increasing aggressiveness in the nature of the female rights movement. Advocates increasingly organized protests and campaigns to coerce the Congress into passing Amendment XIX and ensuring its enforcement by all states[footnoteRef:5]. The above political action, buttressed by American females' contribution to the industrial sector in the crucial WWI era, led to the Amendment's enforcement. [5: Supra, note 2.] Thesis statement Amendment XIX proved to be one among the greatest milestones in American… Continue Reading...

Katz V United States

Issues before the Court Does the Constitutional Amendment IV provide a safeguard for telephonic conversations carried out in a public telephone booth? Can secret recordings of such conversations be presented in the form of evidence in court trials (Katz v. United States)? Facts of the Case/Case Summary The petitioner in the case had been charged with infringing federal regulations by conveying wagering information via a public payphone (Katz v. United States). As evidence in the case trial, the government presented recordings of the petitioner’s conversation procured using a concealed listening device in the booth. The appellate… Continue Reading...

Mapp Vs Ohio Case

constitutional Amendment IV could be admitted in state courts. Attorney Kearns lodged an appeal notice and forwarded the case to Ohio’s Supreme Court, to reconsider the ruling made by the Court of Appeals (Mapp v. Ohio - Supreme Court of Ohio (Case No. 36,091)). Amendments I and XIV established the unconstitutional nature of Ohio State’s anti-obscenity act, as (1) it was vague and failed to outline obscenity standards, and (2) other states’ anti-obscenity acts were meant for lewd materials’ exhibitors, sellers, and publishers, rather than possessors. Justice Taft was the… Continue Reading...

Katz Vs United States

in the Katz v United States case is with regard to whether the Constitutional Amendment IV provides protection for telephone conversations that are carried out in public phone booths and which are recorded in secret to serve as evidence in court, against an individual (Samaha, 2011). Arguments/Objectives of the Parties According to Katz, the phone booth that he used was supposed to be a constitutionally-safeguarded area. While he didn't attempt to go to the booth and back stealthily, he did wish for no uninvited ear to hear his conversations. He further argued that just because he chose to conduct his gambling-related conversations in… Continue Reading...

Guns in the Workplace

prohibit firearms in employee automobiles represents a serious blow to the Constitutional Amendment II (Shaw). However, senior attorney working for the 'Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence', Brian Siebel, disagrees. In his view, these regulations constitute a systematic endeavor to force arms across the whole of society and forbid anybody, right from school and college authorities to private sector firms, from banning guns on campus. Although I believe we are legally and morally entitled to gun ownership, the ethicality of this idea gets complicated if one takes into account the aspect of respecting others' wishes. For instance, carrying a firearm into… Continue Reading...

American History During Early 20th Century

suffrage campaigns. Both women's suffrage and prohibition became Constitutional Amendments, showing the power of the Progressive movement in influencing politics. The direct election of senators was also a Progressive era Constitutional Amendment that increased the participatory nature of American democracy. Another cornerstone of progressivism was a real attempt to reform government through evidence-based practices. Relying on empiricism was a hallmark of the modern era, and the Progressives in America aimed to replace cronyism with science-based public policy. With rigorous scientific methodology still in its infancy, though, the effectiveness of progressive reforms would not be fully felt for another… Continue Reading...

Terry Vs Ohio

detention may be classified as an unwarranted search, according to the Constitutional Amendment IV (Samaha, 2012). Arguments Prior to trial commencement, the accused men attempted to quash the official's evidence, dubbing it as "inadmissible" since it was uncovered through an unauthorized frisking (Samaha, 2012). They asserted that the official (i.e., Mcfadden) lacked both a probable cause for detention and a search warrant. However, their motion was denied. Holdings The Supreme Court held that, in spite of a lack of probable cause for apprehension, the complainant's frisking, which gleaned a concealed gun, satisfied Amendment IV conditions. Drawing from experience, Mcfadden had a… Continue Reading...

UAE and Japan Relations

the modern Japanese navy are capable of defending commercial shipping lanes in their region if put to the test by China, Russia or Iran. Furthermore, the potential for a constitutional amendment in Japan that expands the nation’s authority to include specifically offensive weaponry in its arsenal may be on the horizon given the need for Japan to exercise greater responsibilities in its areas of control. It is also noteworthy that the recent 2018 Trust Barometer poll found that UAE placed near the top of the countries surveyed in terms of the trustworthiness of various national institutions while Japan was ranked near the bottom (O’Leary, 2018). These recent global trust ratings indicate that the efforts by the UAE’s leadership are… Continue Reading...

Norway, England, Wales, and the United States

United States Supreme Court rulings can be overturned by a future U.S. Supreme Court decision or a constitutional amendment. Although similar to the Supreme Court in Norway, no further appeals can occur should a case reach the American Supreme Court. Although England has no Supreme Court, there is a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. This court represents the ultimate court for any civil and criminal matters in Wales, England, and Northern Ireland. This change was made on October 1, 2009 and replaced the judicial functions of the judicial House of Lords. "the Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom's… Continue Reading...

sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Constitutional Amendment" (2019, April 26) Retrieved April 28, 2024, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/constitutional-amendment-2173764

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Constitutional Amendment" 26 April 2019. Web.28 April. 2024. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/constitutional-amendment-2173764>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Constitutional Amendment", 26 April 2019, Accessed.28 April. 2024,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/constitutional-amendment-2173764