Modern Interpretation of The First Amendment Essay -- essays papers

Modern Interpretation of The First AmendmentThe first Amendment of the United States governance says coitus shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the publish practice session thereof or abridging the liberty of speech, or of the press or the right wing of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.1 Our shank fathers felt that this statement was plain enough for all to infrastand, however instead often the United States government deems it necessary to make laws to better deposit those rights that be stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both support and discouraged by our modern interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.A great deal of bills have been written and passed as legislation under the pretense that they would better outline the citizen rights and ensure their libertys. Yet occasionally these laws be created with disregard to what i s stated in our Constitution. At times they distort and wrestle the original meaning of the work, counter acting the purpose of creating the Amendments. The intention of Amendments was to be an outline of the rights of the people. They were to ensure that there would not be a fictionalize of what the framers had experienced when they set out on their mission to draft a document that would govern our country for years to come. Little by small-scale our elected officials have been discounting our Constitution. There are many another(prenominal) resulting repercussions the most close to everyone being the individuals rights. The end result of these interpretations being that our people are hurt, as we are slowly being stripped of our rights as U.S. citizens. There are two freedoms that seem to cause the most contention, the first being freedom of press and the second being the freedom of religion. It remains to be illustrious that none of the great constitutional rights of conscience, however vital to a free society is absolute in character. Thus, while the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion goes a long way, it does not serve to protect acts judged to be morally licentious, such as poly amorous marriages. Children cannot be required to run for the flag salute which is forbidden by religious belief also freedom of speech, often defended by the courts, does not extend to the seditious utteran... ... by means of the years many changes have taken place, and technologies have been discovered, yet our Constitution remains. Some say that the Constitution was written for people hundreds of years ago, and in turn is out of step with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far. The framers would be pleases that their great planning and thought have been implemented up until this point. however this does not compensate for the fact, that the we the people have empowered the government to a greater extent so than our fore fathers had intended. Citizens were entrusted with the duty to oversee the government, yet so many times they are disinterested and only seem to have an mental picture when the governments implications affect them. As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, do by the good of the whole and also the good for the future. Thus there are no true flaws in the Constitution, it appears that the conflict emerges in the individual and their self, and poses oral sex when we must decide when to compromise the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to bother to what we know is right and honest.