Government Regulation of First Amendment - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1552 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2019/04/26 Category Law Essay Level High school Tags: First Amendment Essay Did you like this example? The US Constitution was drafted to ensure the rights of the American people. Every amendment and article that has been added to the Constitution for that purpose of ensuring the protection of every right of American citizens. Since the Constitution was established, there have been many court cases that challenged American citizens rights. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Government Regulation of First Amendment" essay for you Create order Some of these cases have set precedents for future cases such as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), and Miranda v. Arizona (1966). The Declaration of Independence states, among these [rights] are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, and the American court system cannot deny nor rule against the rights of the American people. First Amendment Rights The First Amendment to the Constitution 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 (Constitution). These rights are guaranteed to be protected by the Supreme Court. Cases that have protected the First Amendment are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986). These cases are important to know as an American Citizen because they are referenced in many cases involving freedom of speech, expression, and press. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion to every American citizen. However, since America was discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1492, religion has been used to incite violence. The commissioner of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission stated that I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has bee n used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be†I mean, we-we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me, it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to†to use their religion to hurt others (SCOTUS, 13). The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is no stranger to the First Amendments rights, considering their case against Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2017. Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Jack Phillips, owner, and operator of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado refused to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple, wedding ceremony due to his religious views on homosexual marriage. During that time, Colorado had not legalized gay marriage. State law also allowed storekeepers to decline to create specific messages that they considered offensive to a certain extent. After Phillips declined to make them a cake, the couple filed charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Their claim was that Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any offering servicesto the public. The CCRC referred the case to have a formal hearing before the Administrative Law Judge, who ruled in favor of the couple. However, the ALJ rejected Phillips First Amendment claims saying that requiring him to make a cake for a same-sex couple is a violation of his freedom of religion. According to Douglas Fraleigh, the Christians hold the belief in freedom of speech due to their Hebrew heritage (Fraleigh, 2011, p. 28). In 2017, the case found its way to the US Supreme Court where there was a 7-2 ruling in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Considering that commission sided with the couple and did not act as a neutral, unbiased party, Justice Anthony Kennedy ruled that they had been hostile to Jack Phillips religious beliefs. Legality of the Case When studying this case, some questions considering the religious beliefs of Jack Phillips may rise. What is defined as religious beliefs? An attempt to define religion, even for purposes of increasing freedom of religions, would run afoul of the ?establishment clause as excluding some religions, or even as establishing a notion respecting religion (Lockhart, 1987, p. 1113). If the Communist Party claimed religious status during the Red Scare, would the criminal syndicalism laws that limited free speech have passed (Mineshima-Lowe)? One could argue that systems such as Communism explain the meaning and purpose of life, therefore, it fits the status quo of a religion. Another could argue that Democracy and Fascism could also be defined as religions because they fit that description. When defining religion, one must look at one of the philosophers who inspired the US Constitution, John Locke. John Locke religious views would limit religious freedom to forms of worship that have no dest abilizing political consequences (Kessler). In that case, the religious views of Jack Phillips seem to fit that description. With that in mind, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion to any US citizen, which holds a solid defense for Jack Phillips. Section one of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution, in summary, states, All persons born or naturalized in the United Statesare citizens of the United Statesno state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United Statesnor deny to any personthe equal protection of the law (SCOTUS). This amendment commonly referred to as the equal protection of the law amendment is famously noted in groundbreaking cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade. Craig and Mullins pleaded the Fourteenth Amendment when Phillips refused to sell them a personalized wedding cake. As soon as we sat down with the owner, he asked who the cake was for, we told him that it was us, and he informed us that he would not bake a cake for a same-sex weddingwe were mortified and humiliated stated David Mullins in a post-trial interview (Barnes). Phillips told the couple that he would happily sell them anything else in his shop, but since t heir request goes against his religious views, he respectfully declined. After the case was decided, Phillips appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Phillips then petitioned to the Supreme Court for certiorari with the following question: Whether applying Colorados public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create an expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment (SCOTUS). The Supreme Court found the CCRC guilty because of their bias of the gay couple. Rhetoric The Supreme Court used an exceptional amount of hypothetical questions in their questioning of the lawyers. The questions varied from a baker calling their cake a piece of expressional artwork to an architect expressing themselves in their buildings. The Supreme Court continued to ask both attorneys, Frederick Yager with Craig and Mullins, and Kristen Waggoner with Masterpiece Cakeshop until they reached a decision. Michael Farris, President, CEO, and General Counsel of the Alliance Defending Freedom stated in his post-trial interview that this is the first time in American history where there is a serious consideration of compelling people to deliver a message thats contrary to their beliefs (SCOTUS). Farris also gave a lot of bold statements about the First Amendment including that freedom of speech includes the context where other people may be offended (SCOTUS). Conclusion This case puts America in a sticky situation because, in order for this case to set the precedent for future cases, the Supreme Court would be forced to decide if the fourteenth or the First Amendment is worth sacrificing. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop due to bias. The main argument for Waggoner was that the CCRC violated Phillips First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion. The main argument for Yager was that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the Fourteenth Amendment when they refused service to the couple. In regards to the law, the Supreme Court made the right decision because the CCRC showed bias when they should have acted as a neutral party. Michael Farris also said in his interview that tolerance is a two-way street (Farris). Showing tolerance to one side and not the other is not freedom. If this incident were to happen in 2018, the Supreme Court would rule in favor of the gay couple due to Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized gay marriage in 2015 guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause (Oyez). Before this ruling, Republicans tried for many years to put an amendment on a ballot to make gay-marriage illegal across the country (Klarman, 2014, p.193). For future cases that are similar to this, the Supreme Court will have to judge on a case-by-case basis because there is nothing legally restricting business owners from expressing their views on their creations. References Fraleigh, D. (2011). Freedom of Expression in the Marketplace of Ideas. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Klarman, M. (2014). From the Closet to the Altar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lockhart, W. (1987). Constitutional Law. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publish Co. Mineshima-Lowe, D. (unknown) Retrieved November 11, 2018, from https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/942/criminal-syndicalism-laws Robert Barnes (December 5, 2017) Retrieved November 13, 2018, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-asked-if-wedding-cake-bakers-case-protects-religious-freedom-or-illegal-discrimination/2017/12/05/c73e6efa-d969-11e7-a841-2066faf731ef_story.html?noredirect=onutm_term=.b158236af045 The Supreme Court of the United States (2017, October). Retrieved November 8, 2018, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf The Supreme Court of the United States (2018, June) Retrieved November 13, 2018, from https://www.c-span.org/video/?438139-1/supreme-court-hears-masterpiece-Cakeshop-v-colorado-civil-rights-commission-case

Machiavelli´s Principle in Macbeth by William Shakespeare...

THESIS STATEMENT Macbeth, by William Shakespeare, applies the Machiavellian principles of how princes should properly conduct themselves which is directly applied through Duncan, Macbeth, Lady Macbeth, and Malcolm. PURPOSE STATMENT Through analytic research, this paper will examine, as well as, compare and contrast the Machiavellian principles to the characters in Macbeth. The focus will include the influence of his principles, how they affect the characters, behaviors, and if they fit the description of a proper prince. INTRODUCTION William Shakespeare wrote Macbeth with the influence of Machiavellian principles in accordance with his characters. This statement can be supported by the characteristics he carefully coordinated within†¦show more content†¦Through Malcolm, Muir states a new era by bestowing new honours (15) is created. King Duncan has the throne when the audience is first introduced to Scotlands kingdom. Shakespeares first influence of Machiavellis principles are observed in scene two. Bloom describes Duncan as a generous, loving, and nurturing king (25). Duncan was deceived by Macdonwald, a traitor and then-Thane of Cawdor, because he instilled too much trust in him. This violates Machiavellis principle of love then feared and his improper usage of clemency. According to Machiavelli, every prince ought to desire to be considered clement and not cruel. Nevertheless he ought to take care not to misuse this clemency (1). Duncan continues to misuse his clemency in his reign. By placing too much trust in Macdonwald, a rebellion breaks out when he gets the first opportunity. In gaining ambition, Macdonwald is referred to as, a rebel, for to that/ The multiplying villainies of nature/ Do swarm upon him (Shakespeare 1.2.12-13). After he was supplied by Duncan with the necessary resources, it can be inferred that this is when he chooses to rebel. Due to Duncans lack of cruelty, he is not able to enforce himself until its too late. Unable to hold his kingdom together and oblivious of traitors, Shakespeare uses the influence of Machiavelli to demonstrate a weak king. One who chooses to be loved than feared, using to much clemency and little cruelty. Muir and

Perspectives on International Law in Turkey -myassignmenthelp

Question: Write about thePerspectives on International Law in Turkey for Rights. Answer: Introduction The International Human Rights law was established in 1948 under the Declaration of rights of human beings. These rights are used to express the right and freedoms of all human beings irrespective of their race, origin or background. This was an agreement made to uphold the nature of human beings and has been used to create treaties, bills, conventions and constitutional provisions (Human rights, 2006). The International Human Rights consist of the two Covenants on Civil, Political Rights, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Bill of Human Beings Rights (Michael, 2014). The International Law protects human rights through International Treaties. For instance, when a country joins a treaty that is bound by the international human rights law, it must protect individual human rights, and avoid from interfering with those rights (United Nations, n.d.). Turkey is a country that is accused of human rights violations on multiple occasions especially due to the series of coups experienced. Human rights conventions have been ratified in various states but there are still many violations that are reported especially in non-western countries. In Turkey, the government had made efforts to protect and respect individual human rights. However, recently after the attempted coup in 2016, the violation of human rights has been on the rise. This essay argues about the universalism and relativity of human beings rights. Turkey In the past, Turkey was under the Ottoman Empire which underwent secession after the first world war. As a result, in 1923, a new Turkey was established. The international human rights conventions were established after the second world war. Traditionally, Turkey was a country that violated human rights especially those of detainees. This is mainly due to the coups that have affected it between 1960 and 1980. In 2002, the new government under the Justice and Development Party uphold the international law and it started by abolishing the state of emergency that had been there for twenty-five years (Human Rights and the Transformation Process in Turkey, 2013). This government made changes that were targeted towards improving the human rights laws in Turkey. In 2010, the constitution was amended and it included more rights and the restructuring of the judicial system. In 2013, it established a legal framework that allowed more freedom of speech based on the penal code of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) (Buckley, 2001). In addition, the prisons were inspected by the human rights inquiry committee which shared the findings with non- governmental organizations. Similarly, there have been efforts made to protect womens right regarding violence and abuse. Indeed, Turkey was the first country to sign the document on the convention in Istanbul concerning violence against women. additionally, there was more awareness on human rights with the issue being added to the primary school curriculum, high school electives, and professional training programs. Lastly, people with different religious beliefs were allowed to practice their religions and have different schools based on these beliefs (Human Rights and the Transformation Process in Turkey, 2013). In July 2016, there was a failed coup aimed against President Erdo?an and the Justice and Development Party in Turkey. The coup left more than 200 people dead and approximately 2000 injured. The events that led to the coup were clashes between the Kurdistan Workers Party and the government that left civil servant such as mayors jobless or detained. The government also blocked non-governmental organizations such as Amnesty International and the United Nation from documenting human rights violations in the southeast region of the country (Amnesty International, 2017). It is worth noting that the Kurdistans Workers Party is defined as a terrorist group by the United States, the European Union and the Turkish government (Miles, 2017). In addition, the parliament had approved a law that gave the president executive powers. After the failed coup, the government announced a state of emergency which was later extended in October. Over the following months, there have been cases of human rights abuses of the detainees and civil servants. The country deviated from the two human rights conventions aforementioned but it is prohibited from deviating from the core rights that protect the rights of detainees (Human Rights Watch, 2017). The Turkish government has succeeded in denying the freedom of expression in the country by attacking journalists through prosecution, jailing and closing down of media outlets. Moreover, it has taken over media companies through appointing government trustees such as the Zaman Newspaper. Major government critics were also arrested and twitter accounts suspended at the request of the government. Civil servants such as teachers, and judges were suspended without investigation and non-governmental organizations shut down. In addition, trustees were appointed to replace elected offic ials. Perspectives of human rights in Turkey and the West Human beings rights are universal which means they are the same irrespective of the country where they are practiced. Universalism is the view that rights are similar in every country. Rights are either right or wrong depending on their nature not on their cultural setting. However, these rights can be applied differently depending on the cultural settings (Ellis, Emon, Glahn, 2012). In addition, this means that though a right depends on the culture of the people, its the nature of the right that determines its application. This view of human rights has been opposed because it is seen as a way for the Western states to dominate other states. This is mainly because human rights were developed by western states and seem to favor their interests. In a broader concept, this way of thinking is referred to as liberalism. Liberalists believe that human beings have basic rights that should be protected and respected (Marianne Tim, 2008). This is widely practiced by the Western states since 1945 before the human rights international law was established. On the other hand, in relativism, human rights are not dependent on culture but are as a result of those cultures. This means that there are no universal human rights and it is wrong for international institutions to impose such laws on sovereign states ("Human Rights", 2014). Additionally, some states accept that there are universal human rights but they reject the perspective of the Western states regarding human rights. According to these states, human rights development should be based on the religious beliefs and cultural values of various communities in the world (Ellis, Emon, Glahn, 2012). In a broader concept, this viewpoint is regarded as realism. According to realist, human rights are just a propaganda that should only be pursued if it is in the best interest of the country otherwise they should not be considered (Marianne Tim, 2008). In fact, these states regard human rights as a tool used by powerful states such as the United States to exercise their power and benefit. For example, when the United States wants to overthrow a regime it may use the international law on human rights for this purpose (Jones, 2013). The Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey case were judged by the Grand Chamber of the ECHR in 2003. The case involved Refah Partisi a political party that was formed in 1983 (Case of Refah Partisi and Others V. Turkey, 2003). In 1995, the party was the most popular due to the majority of seats it obtained in the general election and had formed a coalition government. Prior to the Grand Chambers decision, the party had been dissolved by the Turkish constitutional court. The party was dissolved based on the following allegations that showed the party did not support secularism as required by the Turkish constitution. First, the party leaders advocated for the abolishment of secularism in public. Second, they openly supported the wearing of headscarves by women in public institutions which was against secularism. Third, some of the members openly supported the implementation of the Islamic law through bloodshed. Four, the members appealed to Islamic leaders to offer their support to the party and some hosted these leaders in meetings ("Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey Article 19", 2003). Meanwhile, the party did not take any disciplinary measures on any of these members showing that their views reflected the views of the party. The party brought the case before the court due to the abuse of their freedom of expression and association. However, the principal state counsel that had filed the case for its dissolution argued that the party supported had expressed its opinion regarding plurality where the legal systems are different for various groups based on their religious beliefs such as sharia law. Therefore, these meant that the partys objectives were not in alignment with those of the state and the constitution did allow such a party to be dissolved. The Grand Chamber ruled that the party should be dissolved. This is because sharia laws were incompatible with the democratic laws. Refah had argued that it supported pluralism because it gave courts jurisdiction on cases that dealt with religious beliefs. The court agreed that political parties are a form of freedom of association in a democratic society. This means that the dissolution of the party was indeed a violation of the freedom of association. However, the European Convention mainly upheld the laws of a democratic society and not laws based on religious beliefs ("Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey Article 19", 2003). The court also recognized that pluralism is a form of democracy. This supports the freedom of expression of political parties. For this case, there was a violation of the freedom of expression of Refah. Secularism was considered one of the principles that the state is governed by. A violation of this principle threatened the democracy of the state thus the dec ision to dissolve the party was upheld. This case revealed the different views on human rights. For members of Refah, freedom of expression involved the expression of their religious beliefs and their relation to the law. According to them, the international law should be in agreement with the sharia law. Meanwhile, the international community feels that the sharia law is a threat to the universal human rights. This means that for one law to exist the other must be abolished. This restrictive nature of the international laws enforces the belief that these laws do not consider the cultural and religious beliefs of a community hence relativism (Ellis, Emon, Glahn, 2012). Nevertheless, in a world where Islam is the fastest growing religion shouldnt it be wiser to find common ground between international law and Islamic law? Another similar case had been brought before the same court in 1998 namely, United Communists Party and others v. Turkey ("Case of the united communist party of Turkey and others v. Turkey", 2007). The party had been formed in 1990. In the same year, the Principal of state wanted it dissolved based on the allegation that it threatened the unity of the citizens. Another reason is that the word communist had been used in naming the party. Lastly, it was seen as a replacement of the Kurdish Workers Party which had been dissolved. In its program, the party had stated that it would fight for the rights of the Kurdish through the political arena but not through violence as is advocated by the international community. The party advocated for the unity of Kurds and Turks to restore peace. Despite this, the party was dissolved in 1991("Case Law of The European Court of Human Rights Related to Public International Law", 2016). In the trial, the government argued that the name communist undermined the constitution. According to the name, the party would advocate a communism which was against the constitutions law on pluralism. The partys agenda to free the Kurdish people also undermined the constitution and unity of the people. According to the constitution, the Turkish citizenship did not recognize such identities. The Kurdish were allowed to identify themselves by that title but they were not allowed to form minority groups. The applicants complained that dissolving the party was a violation of their freedom to assemble and associate. The court ruled that political parties are an essential part of a democratic state. The court emphasized that political parties were included in the article regarding the association. In addition, it stated that the government was allowed to act in any way when it felt that a party threatened the state but it had to do within the guidelines of the convention. It ruled that based on the partys agenda, there was no evidence that showed the party intended to use violence to violate the rights of other people or push its agenda. There was no evidence to show that the party was not supporting democracy. In fact, the party had outlined in its constitutions that one of its methods to resolve conflict was to use dialogue which is democratic. Additionally, the partys name could not prove without any doubts the party was a threat to the nations security ("United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey", 2008). The chairman and the vice chairman had also asked to be compensated for the damages incurred in legal fees due to the dissolution. They also claimed their rights to associate and express themselves had been violated. This is because once the party was dissolved they were also banned from holding public offices such as members of parliament. The court ruled that dissolving the party had interfered with the rights of its chairman and vice chairman regarding their association. As a result, the government was supposed to compensate them the total sum of the legal fees incurred ("United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey", 2008). Based on this case, it is evident that the Turkish government is violated the laws in the convention when dissolving this party. It is universal that in a democratic society political parties are a must and they represent different political views of the citizens. Despite this, the government was against the idea of a political party that expressed the views of the Kurdish people. This reveals the governments relativism in dealing with the political rights of its citizens. Evidently, when the situation presented itself the government chose to defy the international law and impose its own rules. Conclusion The constitution of the country allows the derogation of the laws in the state of emergency but it must not be against the international laws. Additionally, it states some laws that are not supposed to be suspended. For example, everyone has a right to their own life, and they have a right to remain innocent until they are proven guilty in a court through a fair trial ("The Turkish State of Emergency Under Turkish Constitutional Law and International Human Rights Law ", 2017). Similarly, the international law provides suspensions depending on the extremity of the situation. There are also no suspensions in cases such as regarding a persons life, freedom from torture, and religion. As aforementioned, the Turkish government is currently violating these rights. This shows the governments relativism regarding these laws. Based on the first legal judgment, the universal perspective is widely accepted by the international community especially the western states. In this case, the court ruled that there was an incompatibility in the Islamic and international law which threatened the democracy of the country. Generally, in Turkey, the law concerning these rights is adhered to only when it suits the national interest thus relativism. In conclusion, both should be considered in the implementation of human beings rights especially in Turkey where they seem to be enforced only if they are in the best interest of the nation. References Amnesty International. (2017).Turkey 2016/2017. Retrieved 10 October 2017. Buckley, M. (2001). The European Convention on Human Rights and The Right to Life in Turkey.Human Rights Law Review, 36-60. The case of the united communist party of Turkey and others v. Turkey. (2007).The International Journal of Human Rights,2(2), 78-79. Ellis, D., Emon, J., Glahn, G. (2012).Islamic Law and International Human Rights Law. Oxford University Press. Human Rights and the Transformation Process in Turkey. (2013). Retrieved from https://wp-content/uploads/SAM_Papers.pdf Human Rights Watch. (2017).Turkey.Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 10 October 2017, from https://world-report/2017/country-chapters/turkey Human rights. (2006) (p. 10). New York. Human Rights. (2014). Retrieved 11 October 2017, from https://entries/rights-human/ Jones, R. (2013).Islam and English Law. Cambridge University Press. Marianne, H., Tim, D. (2008).Human rights in international relations. Retrieved from HTTP:/ //politics/research/readingroom/Dunne-Goodhart-chap04.pdf Michael, H. (2014).International Human Rights. Abingdon: Routledge. Miles, T. (2017).U.N. documents human rights violations in southeast Turkey. Retrieved 10 October 2017. Refah Partisi and Others v. Turkey Article 19. (2003). Retrieved 11 October 2017, from https://resources.php/resource/2627/en/refah-partisi-and-others-v.-turkey The Case Laws of The European Court of Human Rights Related to Public International Law. (2016). Retrieved 11 October 2017, from https://rm.coe.int/pil-2017-case-law-rev-en-case-law-echr/ The case of Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) And Others V. Turkey. (2003). Retrieved from https://wp-content/uploads/old-site-downloads/download-Refah-Partisi-v.-Turkey.pdf The Turkish State of Emergency Under Turkish Constitutional Law and International Human Rights Law (2017).America Society of International Law. Retrieved 15 October 2017, from https:// insights/volume/21/issue/1/turkish-state-emergency-under-Turkish-constitutional-law-and United Communist Party of Turkey v. Turkey. (2008). Retrieved 15 October 2017, from https://resources.php/resource/3122/en/echr:-united-communist-party-of-turkey-v.-turkey United Nations.The Foundation of International Human Rights Law. Retrieved 10 October 2017.