Modern Interpretation of The First Amendment Essay -- essays papers

Modern Interpretation of The world-class AmendmentThe first Amendment of the United States record says Congress shall make no uprightness respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise at that placeof or abridging the granting immunity of speech, or of the press or the right of the hoi polloi peaceably to assemble, and to predication the Government for a redress of grievances.1 Our fore fathers felt that this statement was observable enough for all to understand, however quite often the United States presidency deems it necessary to make laws to better define those rights that are stated in the Constitution. Today the framers would be both encouraged and discouraged by our modernistic interpretation the First Amendment the United States Constitution.A great deal of bills draw been written and passed as legislation under the pretense that they would better abridgment the citizen rights and ensure their freedoms. Yet occasionally these laws are created with disregard to what is stated in our Constitution. At times they distort and twist the original meaning of the work, retort acting the purpose of creating the Amendments. The intention of Amendments was to be an come to the foreline of the rights of the people. They were to ensure that there would not be a repeat 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 little our elected officials bind been discounting our Constitution. in that respect are many rooting repercussions the most dear to everyone macrocosmness 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 creator the most contention, the first being freedom of press and the second being the freedom of religion. It remains to be noted that none of the gre at perfect rights of conscience, however vital to a free society is absolute in character. Thus, while the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion goes a coherent way, it does not serve to protect acts judged to be morally licentious, such as poly amorous marriages. Children cannot be required to execute the flag salute which is disallow by religious belief Similarly freedom of speech, often defended by the courts, does not extend to the seditious utteran... ...Through 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 stones throw with the times. Yet its principals and guidelines have held thus far. The framers would be pleases that their great planning and belief have been implemented up until this point. However this does not compensate for the fact, that the we the people have empowered the government mo re so than our fore fathers had intended. Citizens were entrusted with the certificate of indebtedness to oversee the government, yet so many times they are noble and only seem to have an opinion when the governments implications refer them. As time has changed so has the American people, we often interpret our freedoms in a self serving manner, disregarding the good of the whole and alike 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 question when we must decide when to agree the morals that our Constitution was founded on, or when to stick to what we know is right and honest.