What The Constitution Allows: Actions Explored

The US Constitution is a document that outlines the powers and limitations of the federal government and the rights and freedoms of its citizens. It consists of a main body and a Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments. The Constitution is designed to ensure that the government's powers are limited and balanced, with each branch of government checking the power of the other two. It also reserves certain rights for the states and the people, such as the freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. The Constitution also outlines the roles and responsibilities of the President, Congress, and the judiciary, and it provides guidelines for impeachment and elections. One of the primary purposes of the Constitution is to establish a federal government that is responsive to the people and protects their liberties.

Explore related products

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

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

$9.99 $9.99

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$236.71 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.32 $126.95

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $6.95

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

The right to free speech and worship

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and expression from government interference. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, which may be exercised directly through words or symbolically through actions. This includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message. The right to free speech is recognised as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The First Amendment prohibits any laws that establish a national religion or impede the free exercise of religion. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another, enforcing the separation of church and state. The Free Exercise Clause prohibits the government from interfering with a person's practice of their religion.

The Supreme Court has recognised that the government may prohibit speech that may cause a breach of the peace or incite violence. For example, speech that advocates illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech, and obscenity are not protected by the First Amendment. Additionally, during the Vietnam War, the Court upheld a law prohibiting the destruction of draft cards, as it interfered with the functioning of the draft system. However, the Supreme Court has also stated that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information and ideas, regardless of their social worth, and to be generally free from governmental intrusions into one's privacy and control of one's thoughts.

The First Amendment also guarantees the freedom of assembly and the right to petition the government. The Petition Clause protects the right to petition all branches and agencies of the government for action, and the right of assembly allows people to join together and seek change from the government.

The right to keep and bear arms

The Second Amendment states: "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." The concept of citizens possessing weapons for their defence predates the Constitution and can be traced back to the English Bill of Rights in 1689, which allowed Protestant English citizens to "have arms for their defence [sic] suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."

The interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved over time. Initially, it was primarily seen as a safeguard against foreign invasion and federal overreach. However, in the 20th and 21st centuries, the focus shifted towards general safety and the protection of life, liberty, and property. There has been considerable debate about whether the amendment grants an individual right to possess firearms or if it is limited to the collective right of states to maintain a militia.

In 2008, the US Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms for self-defence, not just for service in a state-run militia. This ruling was further strengthened in 2010 with the McDonald v. City of Chicago case, which established that the Second Amendment's provisions applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

Despite these rulings, the regulation of firearms remains a contentious issue. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged in 2008 that the right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to reasonable prohibitions and regulations. Courts have upheld existing gun regulations, and some states have specific provisions regarding the right to bear arms, such as prohibiting the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures

The Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. This is a cherished constitutional right, safeguarding privacy and security from police and government intrusion.

The Fourth Amendment ensures that people's "persons, houses, papers, and effects" are protected from intrusive searches. This means that any evidence collected in connection with an unlawful search is not admissible in court. This is known as the "exclusionary rule". The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine further extends this rule to evidence that is collected separately but derived from evidence illegally obtained.

The definition of "unreasonable" in the context of digital searches is a challenge for state and federal courts. Legal scholars have defined use restrictions as a way to limit law enforcement's use of information already in its possession. This is especially important given law enforcement's increasing reliance on technology.

In the case of United States v. Morton, Professor Orin Kerr suggested the use of evidentiary firewalls as a way to protect privacy interests from intrusive digital searches. This "ongoing seizure" approach has been welcomed by some federal and state courts, but competing approaches are also offered.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$296.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism

$59.81 $76.95

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights

$76.95 $76.95

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$100 $345

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28 $28

The right to not be subject to excessive bail or fines

The Eighth Amendment (Amendment VIII) to the United States Constitution protects citizens against excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the US Bill of Rights. The amendment serves as a limitation on the state or federal government's ability to impose unduly harsh penalties on criminal defendants before and after a conviction.

The right to be free from excessive bail and fines is a fundamental protection afforded to individuals by the Eighth Amendment. This right ensures that bail amounts and fines imposed during legal proceedings are not excessively burdensome or unfair. The amendment's text states that "excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed". This provision ensures that bail amounts are reasonable and accessible, and that fines are proportionate to the offence, thereby preventing the government from imposing excessive financial hardships on individuals.

The history of this amendment can be traced back to the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which stated that "excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed". This principle was further reinforced by the 1776 Declaration of Rights in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it was eventually incorporated into the US Constitution through the Eighth Amendment. The amendment's prohibition against excessive bail and fines is intended to prevent abuses of power by the government and ensure fairness in the criminal justice system.

The Supreme Court has provided clarification on the interpretation and application of the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Bail and Fines Clauses. For example, in United States v. Salerno (1987), the Court held that the only limitation imposed by the Excessive Bail Clause is that "the government's proposed conditions of release or detention not be 'excessive' in light of the perceived evil". Additionally, in Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. (1989), the Court ruled that the Excessive Fines Clause does not apply when the government is not a party to the case or entitled to receive damages.

The Eighth Amendment's protection against excessive bail and fines is a crucial safeguard against governmental overreach and ensures that individuals are treated fairly and justly within the criminal justice system. It is a fundamental right that upholds the principles of proportionality and due process in legal proceedings.

The right to not have soldiers quartered in your home

The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution states that "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law." This amendment was proposed by James Madison in the First United States Congress and passed unanimously with minimal changes. It was ratified on December 15, 1791, as one of the first ten amendments forming the Bill of Rights.

The Third Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to be free from the quartering of soldiers in their homes without their consent. This right was established in response to the Quartering Acts enacted by the British Parliament, which required the Thirteen Colonies to provide food and lodging to British Army troops, even in private residences if necessary. This was one of the reasons for the colonies' dissatisfaction with British rule and their push for independence.

The amendment has been interpreted as establishing an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. For example, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Justice William O. Douglas cited the Third Amendment as implying that an individual's home should be free from state intrusion. Additionally, following the Civil War, the Army compensated property owners for rent and damages, possibly preempting any Third Amendment claims.

While there have been debates about the distinction between peace and war and the authority to authorize quartering, the Third Amendment ensures that citizens' homes are protected from the involuntary quartering of soldiers, regardless of the circumstances. This right is a crucial aspect of civil liberties and has been upheld as an important protection for individuals' privacy and property rights.

Frequently asked questions