The Constitution's Freedom Fundamentals

The United States Constitution's First Amendment protects various freedoms, including religion, speech, and the press. The right to assemble and petition the government is also guaranteed. The Bill of Rights, comprising the first ten amendments, was proposed to limit government power and protect individual liberties. James Madison, then a member of the House of Representatives, drafted the amendments, which were ratified on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment has been interpreted more broadly over time, with Supreme Court rulings emphasising the government's neutrality in religion and protection of individual freedoms.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$9.99 $9.99

Pocket U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence by Cato Institute

$6.94

3- Pocket U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence (Three Pack)

$13.49 $19.99

Three Documents of Freedom Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights

$14.99 $15.98

The Constitution of the United States

$1.5

Documents of Freedom Boxed Set (Books of American Wisdom)

$35 $40

Freedom of religion

Religious freedom is a fundamental and treasured civil liberty in the US. The First Amendment to the US Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, protects this freedom. 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."

The First Amendment's two religion clauses, the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, work together to protect religious freedom. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing a religion, while the Free Exercise Clause upholds the right to practice any religion without government interference.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment to mean that the government must be neutral on religion, neither promoting nor burdening it. This interpretation allows for individuals to worship freely without persecution and prevents the government from supporting a particular religion. The Supreme Court has also developed frameworks and legal standards to determine whether a restriction on religious freedom is constitutional.

The First Amendment's protection of religious freedom has been the subject of several notable court cases, including Engel v. Vitale and Everson v. The Board of Education, which have further clarified the scope and limits of religious freedom in the US.

Freedom of speech

The interpretation of freedom of speech has been a complex and evolving issue. The US Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot restrict speech based on its content or the speaker's message, as this would violate the First Amendment. This includes the right to express symbolic speech, such as displaying flags, wearing armbands, or participating in protests. The Supreme Court has also ruled that the First Amendment applies to state and local governments, in addition to the federal government.

However, freedom of speech is not absolute and is subject to certain restrictions, particularly regarding time, place, and manner. These restrictions aim to address legitimate societal concerns, such as preventing loud protests in residential areas during the night. The government can also impose content-neutral restrictions, as long as they do not target a particular viewpoint or means of expression.

The First Amendment also does not protect all forms of speech. For example, speech that defames a specific individual, constitutes a genuine threat, or violates the law may be restricted. The Supreme Court has ruled on several notable cases involving freedom of speech, such as Gitlow v. New York (1925), NAACP v. Alabama (1958), and Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), shaping the interpretation and application of this right.

The issue of freedom of speech continues to be a subject of debate, particularly in the context of hate speech, the regulation of money in politics, and the role of private actors in limiting speech on their property. The interpretation and protection of freedom of speech under the First Amendment remain dynamic and evolving areas of US constitutional law.

Freedom of the press

The First Amendment guarantees the freedom to publish without interference, constraint, or prosecution by the government. This freedom is not just for the press but also for individuals, as it ensures the public's right to receive information, especially about government affairs and matters of public concern. The Supreme Court has affirmed that the First Amendment protects against prior restraints on publication, such as in Near v. Minnesota (1931), where the Court rejected censorship and recognised freedom of the press.

While the First Amendment protects freedom of the press, it does not shield speakers from private individuals or organisations. The press, however, due to its role in disseminating news and information, may be entitled to heightened constitutional protections and governmental sensitivity. This was acknowledged by Justice Potter Stewart, who emphasised the distinct mention of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment, recognising the press's critical role in American society.

The Supreme Court has also addressed the relationship between freedom of the press and libel laws. In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964), the Court ruled that when a publication involves a public figure, the plaintiff must prove that the publisher knew of the statement's inaccuracy or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. This established an "actual malice" test for media outlets, protecting open discourse about the government and public affairs.

Despite strong constitutional protections, concerns about press freedom in the United States persist. In a 2022 Pew Research survey, 57% of journalists expressed worry about potential restrictions on the press. Additionally, watchdog organisations like Freedom House have criticised authorities for imposing limits on investigative reporting in the name of national security. These complexities underscore the ongoing need to safeguard and uphold the freedom of the press.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States of America: The Declaration of Independence, The Bill of Rights

$19.99 $3.89

The U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights with Amendments: Pocket Size (Annotated)

$7.49

The United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights with Amendments: Large Print Edition (Annotated)

$9.99

Constitution of the United States: US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights with Amendments. Pocket Size

$8.99 $2.79

Documents of Freedom Bundle. FULL SIZE Declaration of Independence, United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

$39.99

The Charters of Freedom: United States Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights

$4.95 $4.95

Freedom to assemble

The right to assemble peaceably is a fundamental human right, political right, and civil liberty. The Constitution of the United States is interpreted to mean both the freedom to assemble and the freedom to join an association. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights, states:

> "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."

The right to assemble is included in the First Amendment alongside other basic rights of democracy, such as the freedoms of religion, speech, press, and petition. These rights are considered fundamental because they allow citizens to express their views and participate freely in government without subscribing to certain beliefs or belonging to approved parties.

The protection of assembly differs from the other rights enumerated in the First Amendment in its wording. It is the only one that includes an adverb, "peaceably," which serves as an important qualifier. The First Amendment protects peaceful, not violent, assembly. This distinction is crucial, as it ensures that the right to assemble cannot be used to incite violence or crime.

The right to assemble has been interpreted to include the freedom of association, which refers to the ability to join an association or group. This right is often used in the context of labor rights and has been recognized by the Supreme Court as a means of preserving other individual liberties.

The right to assemble has been tested and upheld in various court cases throughout American history. For example, in DeJonge v. Oregon (1937), the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Dirk DeJonge, who had been prosecuted under an Oregon statute that outlawed criminal syndicalism, or organizing to bring about a change in government or industrial ownership. The Court ruled that "peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime." Similarly, in the 1992 case of Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, the Supreme Court struck down an ordinance that allowed officials to charge higher permit fees to groups whose marches would require more police protection, upholding the right of neo-Nazis to march through a suburb near Chicago that was home to many Holocaust survivors.

Freedom to petition the government

The right to petition the government is a fundamental freedom outlined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This right prohibits Congress from infringing upon "the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances". The freedom to petition has a long history, dating back to the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and is considered by some to be the most important freedom.

The right to petition allows citizens to express their ideas, hopes, and concerns to their government and elected officials. This can take many forms, including testifying at a public meeting, submitting a written complaint or request to a government agency, contacting a representative, meeting with a government official, or circulating a petition. The right also includes the legal right to sue the government and lobby the government. While lobbying is sometimes distinguished from petitioning as it involves approaching a public official in secret and possibly giving them money, petitioning can also include hiring a lobbyist to present views or requests to government officials.

The scope of the right to petition has expanded over time. It now includes demands for the government to exercise its powers in the interest of the petitioners and to address politically contentious matters, rather than being confined to demands for "a redress of grievances". This expansion has been facilitated by the incorporation doctrine, which has extended the protection of the right to all state and federal courts, legislatures, and executive branches.

The right to petition has been a powerful tool for social change in the United States, playing a role in ending slavery, advancing women's suffrage, and underpinning the Civil Rights Movement. It is a crucial mechanism for protecting all other freedoms and ensuring that minority views are not overwhelmed or ignored by the majority, which is essential for a functioning democracy.

Frequently asked questions