FIRST AMENDMENT

Constitutional Law: First Amendment

Name of Writer

Name of Institution

Constitutional Law: First Amendment

Question 1

At first look, the First Amendment seems to be published in obvious, unequivocal, and facile terms: "Congress shall create no law" (emphasis added) in contravention of certain spiritual and governmental concepts. After a nearer examining, and upon further expression, the amendment's actual complications increase to the exterior by means of chronic concerns that have nagged the legislation over the last two decades.

What type of law "respect[s] the organization of religion"? Does the First Amendment involve here only regulations that would identify a formal nationwide belief, as the Anglican Chapel was established in Britain before United States Revolution? Or does it also involve regulations that identify or recommend spiritual actions such as the celebration of Christmas? Most significantly, can individuals acknowledge on what is intended by the phrase belief so that most all judges may know when belief is being "established" or when the right to its "free exercise" has been infringed?

In the position of flexibility of concept, does the right to talk your thoughts involve the right to use unpleasant terminology that could begin a combat or provoke a riot? Is Freedom of Conversation symbolic of flexibility of concept, such that the right to condemn the U.S. government expands to unpleasant outstanding actions including no published or verbal conditions, like losing the U.S. flag? Does Freedom of the Press secure the right to submit scurrilous, defamatory, and libelous material? If not, can the government prevent the book of such content before it goes to print?

In light of this background, the U.S. Supreme Court has provided dissident governmental speech remarkable constitutional security. However, all speech is not equal under the First Amendment. The high court has determined five places of concept that the government may properly control under certain circumstances. These places are speech that encourages unlawful action and subversive speech, fighting conditions, Obscenity and Porn, commercial speech, and outstanding concept.

The Court has also described that states cannot control the flexibility of concept rights of applicants for judicial office. As opposed to federal most all judges, most state most all judges must stand for selection. in their codes of judicial perform, states have charged restrictions on what applicants or sitting most all judges may say about issues, in desires of protecting judicial flexibility and guaranteeing the community that the rights program is neutral. The Court, in Republican Party of NY v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 122 S. Ct. 2528, 153 L. Ed.2d 694 (2002), denied this approach as mismatched with the First Amendment. The restrictions were unconstitutional because they controlled speech based on content and overwhelmed an important type of speech.

Speech that Incites Illegal Activity and Subversive Conversation Some speakers plan to excite their audience members to take beneficial steps to alter the governmental surroundings. Every day in the United States, individual's side out brochures imploring others who live nearby to write to The Congress about a particular subject, or to election in a certain fashion on a Referendum, or ...