Pick a bill of rights and show the constitutional limitations of this amendment (cover both sides of the topic or pros and cons)
The amendments that led to the development of the Bill of Rights were instituted by James Madison as a way of protecting individuals’ liberties. There had always existed a debate as to how the government powers would be limited in a way that persons would have more freedom to make their decisions without fear of contradicting the constitutions. In a society with federalists and anti-federalist debates on the issue, Madison realized the critical nature and need of the bill of rights. The amendments would bring clarity to ambiguities, set a guideline on future laws to be made by the Congress and offer protection to citizens. It has, however, become necessary for additional laws to be put in place as modern interpretations of the law have created a need for even more specific and better definitions. The very first amendment establishes the right to free speech, assembly, press, religion, and petition to the administration in regards to certain matters.
Though the bill of rights sought out to give people their rights, these rights are limited to a certain extent. One of the constitutional limitations of this bill of rights is that their guarantee is limited. As much as people have the freedom of religion it only stretches to a certain extent within which their morals are adhered to. Religious groups with extreme teachings and that are shown to be inciting their congregations mostly those that tamper with social norms and principles are considered a threat to public safety and will be inhibited. This is especially so in the 21st century where religion is tied to terrorism; one of the most challenging problems of our time (Ley, 2008).
The freedom of press guarantees that people can print and publish their thoughts without fear or worry. However, laws that stop people from publishing people’s private details have been put in place to limit this freedom. There are several cases where the public cannot access certain documents that had previously been available to the public since they have been removed (sealed off) which means that their publisher’s rights to press are hampered. Obscene materials are not to be published especially if they tamper with the reputation others. Freedom of speech supports one’s ability to voice their thoughts without fear that the government will try and stop you. Constitutionally, you cannot force people to give you a platform to speak or to even listen to you. Should you try to forcefully address an audience what you say can be changed or even deleted. Freedom of speech has also been limited by laws that protect people from defamation. The right of speech in a workplace is only allowed if one is within a union while children’s rights of speech are limited when they are in school (Carpenter, 2015).
The general aim of these amendments has been met allowing people to exercise their free will. On the other hand, these rights are a responsibility closely tied to the character. With the right character, people enjoy these rights without limitations while the poor character may lead to their inhibition by the authorities. Causing public panic in a crowd by speaking is considered a crime and it is also a crime to speak at certain places during certain times. Thus one of the pros of this amendment is that it cannot be universally applied to all citizens as each has their character which greatly determines their interaction with this law.
In conclusion, it is clear that the bill of rights was necessary for protecting the people. Each amendment plays a critical role in making clearer how the government interacts with its citizens. The first amendment has allowed people to live more liberal lives as they have some rights that are guaranteed. The freedom to apply these rights can only stretch so much seeing that we do not live in isolation. Some will argue that your freedom starts rights where the other person’s freedoms end thus we cannot separate our freedom from that of other people. This can be one of the reasons why decades after these amendments were first passed in Congress; there has emerged clearer laws that make the bill of rights more applicable especially in a society that experiences changes in all aspects of life as time passes by (Institute, 2017).
- Carpenter, D. (2015). More criticism of teh First Ammendment . The Washington Post , 4.
- Institute. (2017). Bill of Rights Institute . Retrieved 4 7, 2018,
https://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/ - Ley, J. (2008). Ammendment 1 pros and cons . The Herald Tribune , 7.
