Amendments
The Tea Party and the 14th and 17th Amendments
At its core, the Tea Party identifies itself as a political faction intended to reduce what it perceives as the tyrannical power of the federal government over the rights of corporations, states and citizens. This is the perspective that underlies the Tea Parties aggressive posturing in recent political affairs and especially its vitriolic hostility toward President Obama. As a part of the Tea Party's agenda, the group has sough permeating reform in governmental structures so as to reduce what is views as central executive and legislative branches with far too much authority over our lives. Within the context of this view, the Tea Party has been especially vocal where certain terms of the Bill of Rights are concerned. The arch-conservative group, recognizing the difficulty of shifting judicial perspective and precedent on Constitutional Law, has instead attempted to push quite simply for the repeal of those constitutional principles that diverge from its belief system. It is thus that the Tea Party has spearheaded the movement to repeal the 14th and 17th Amendments. However, consistent with the general belief system proposed by Tea Partiers, the notion that these Constitutional Amendments should be repealed is both contrary to the democratic underpinning of the United States and carries significant implications of racial, ethnic and ideological prejudice. If the Tea Party is successful in its mission, then it will have also succeeded in driving back American civil rights and individual liberties more than a hundred years. The result would be a significant thrust toward creating a scenario in which states would essentially retain the right to engage in highly prejudicial, racialist and bigoted policy orientation.
Beginning with consideration of the 14th Amendment, one can begin to see a direct connection between the Tea Party's ambition to see it repealed and the Tea Party's pointedly prejudicial...
The First Amendment 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.” This Amendment basically protects free speech, among other rights—but in recent years it has been necessary to define
Lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=U.S.&vol=408&invol=238). The issues surrounding the 8th Amendment are often complex. The cruel and unusual punishment clause, for instance, may well be at a constitutional crossroads as we move into the 21st century. Depending on the health and position of society, and the manner in which globalization has changed the way America is perceived in the world, and perceives itself, a change in attitude regarding the rubric of punishment is part of
The only way, it would seem, to affect the kind of change that supporters of the initiative want is to amend the state constitution, effectively changing the law of the land. Supporters argue that this is the only viable option left, especially in light of the fact that marijuana is less dangerous the alcohol -- a legal drug -- and that the war on drugs has netted no significant
Georgia (428 U.S. 153). In that case, the Supreme Court finally ruled specifically that capital punishment was not inherently necessarily cruel or unusual, and therefore, was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment in and of itself (Schmalleger, 2008). Since Gregg, the issues surrounding the Eighth Amendment constitutionality of capital punishment relate to the specific methods of implementation in light of evidence that lethal injection, the most common method used
Nelson -- the decision in which was binding on all lower courts -- was decided in favor of the state law in Minnesota banning same-sex marriages (UMT 2010). Conclusion The issue of the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgendered people are still in a state f flux and some confusion, based on the Supreme Court's rulings on the various matters. On the one hand, there is a legal mandate in place
Regardless of the theoretical interpretation of this amendment, the practical effects thus far have been quite clear -- responsibilities and rights not handled by the federal government are left up to state and local governments. One of the most important areas in which this can be seen in action is through the investigation of crime. Because the federal government does not prohibit any state or locality's rights in searching
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now