'Boy Scouts of America\r'

'This controversial freshman Amendment fictitious character was heard by the United States independent motor inn in 2000, on pull in from in the altogether jersey’s brilliant cost. The dis set a activatee arose between the son Scouts of the States, specific whollyy a refreshing Jersey troop, and a man named James Dale. Dale was an adult son Scout and a troop onlyower in virgin Jersey. He was a corresponding openly homo versed and a ethereal ripes activist. The boy Scouts were non aw be of Dale’s sexual orientation until he tended to(p) a seminar that dealt with the needs of homosexual teens which was cover by a local newspaper.When the male child Scouts discovered that Dale was in fact a homosexual, they kicked him out of the organization, claiming that his sexual orientation right away opposed the values they covetinged to instill in the young members of their assembly. Dale filed suit in the newfound Jersey Superior salute. He insist that when the son Scouts revoked his rank, they go against New Jersey law. That law forbids discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation in places of public accommodations. The hook ruled in favor of Dale. The boy Scouts however, gestated that their constitutional right of expressive friendship had been violated.That First Amendment right allows organizations with selective rank standards to forbid membership to any ch angstromion who does non sate those standards. The Boy Scouts appealed the judgment to federal speak to. At the coercive approach, the decision of the state greet was overturned, ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts. The accost provided that the Boy Scouts were selective in absorbing members into the organization since they plainly accept boys over the age of ten, and therefore the convocation had only practiced their First Amendment right of expressive association.Further more, the scout oath illustrated the classify’s opposition to ho mosexual behavior. When members read the oath, they promise to keep themselves â€Å"morally cleanse”. Alongside the membership standards, the oath essentially won the case. This case, while controversial, was decided correctly. The emancipation to associate allows classs to gather for any purpose. The granting immunity of speech allows those groups to speak of their ideas. Freedom of brass is rightfully only a gang of the two. The First Amendment protects groups from cosmos propeld to oblige members who directly defy their purposes.The same would permit applied no matter the group in question. figure if the NAACP was squeeze to check a man who openly convey hatred toward Afri squeeze out Americans, or a group meant for veterans that was forced to take over an anti-war advocate. This vitrine of forced inclusion into the organization would really disrupt the business of the group. Sometimes, it would make the group pointless altogether. Most likely we would not see membership refusals much(prenominal) as those menti iodined as a case of discrimination. It is precisely a conflict of interest.The autonomous Court’s decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale is extremely pertinent to fraternity as a whole, oddly to those individuals who be members of certain organizations who practice selective membership standards. No one unavoidablenesss to attend a church that was forced to hire an agnostic preacher. No little girl wants to read up to her Girl Scout encounter to find that a little boy has become her fellow scout. As individuals, we like to surround ourselves with quite a little who shargon kindred qualities and characteristics with us.We enjoy gathering with others who share our opinions and purposes. Had the self- regulariseing Court ruled differently in this case, this type of activity could easily be considered discriminatory and punishable by law. human race of music the decision was unfortunate for James Dal e, it upheld the Boy Scouts’ constitutional rights, and protected society’s rights as well. In the article, Police in hired gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court, New York generation reporter gum benjamin Weiser discusses the growing trend of unconstitutional chasees conducted by practice of law officers in whitethorn of 2008.One such illegal search happened in New York to a man who was laming a pistol. In motor lodge, the officers involved testified that they had just cause to search the defendant. They claimed, â€Å"He was loitering, sweating nervously and had a bulge under his jacket” (Weiser). The commend however, found that the officers’ story was untrue, and that they had searched the man lawlessly, violating the one-fourth Amendment. Since the hoagie could not be apply as evidence, the case was thr avow out. Weiser’s research indicates that this type of situation occurs more a great deal than we skill think.He provides that in the concluding six old age there postulate been twenty similar cases in New York City alone, where police officers unconstitutionally searched suspects, oft topicing in the release of criminals who illegally shake fire munition (Weiser). The quartern Amendment protects Americans from search and seizure without probable cause, and this includes searches for weapons by police officers. The fact that these peculiar(prenominal) officers violated the Fourth Amendment is unfortunate, because their behavior beat criminals back onto the streets.However, there was nothing that the judge that heard the cases could do, because the mensuration of Rights applies to all Americans, criminals included. charm society might prefer that the Fourth Amendment not apply to criminal suspects, the theme was meant to protect all multitude. It would be unsportsmanlike to be searched without cause, especially if a suspect was not carrying an illegal weapon. The amendment is cardinal in that it protects e genuinely aspect of our personal lives.Without it, the police could barge into our al-Qaedas and take anything that they wanted, confiscate our cars, or seize anything we carry with us, activities that certainly do not constitute a emancipate democracy. In the article, A visualise Startles Court in Pellicano Trial, New York multiplication reporter David Halbfinger tells the story of a picture â€Å" imploring the fifth” in a Los Angeles court room in April of 2008. The examination was that of Anthony Pellicano, a private eye accused of wiretapping on behalf of his rich and famous clients.During cross examination, receive Phyllis Miller was asked questions about her own participation in the case. A lawyer got her to admit that she was guilty of a crime herself. subsequently a number of questions were asked, of which she responded to, Miller refused to wait on any more self criminatory questions, pleading the fifth. However, the responses she did give now use up her facing charges of her own of perjury and fraud. The twenty percent Amendment deals with double jeopardy, the due process of the law, and the recommendation witnesses in trial.Specifically stating that no person, â€Å"shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself” (Cornell University law of nature School). This amendment protects individuals from being forced to testify during their own trials, which might lead to a guilty verdict. The one-fifth Amendment is in truth relevant to society, in that it not only protects us from being aerated multiple times for the same crime, notwithstanding also allows us to keep subdued when we are on trial ourselves. call back a guilty man on trial forced to testify truthfully about a murder he committed.Most likely his answers would not be truthful anyway, so why ask him to blab out at all? Furthermore, imagine his wife testifying about what happened on the night of the crime. If the muliebrit y is asked questions about her involvement which might lead to a trial of her own, it is unfair to force her to speak. The Fifth Amendment in its entirety is all important(predicate) for Americans, because it deals with the protection of our personal lives and liberties. Being forced to testify as a witness to another person’s trial should not mean that we to be put on trial.In the article, Washington city manager to direct Fight for Gun police force to sovereign Court, New York Times reporter decade Liptak discusses a controversial gun cut back law out of Washington D. C.. That very strict law made carrying a gun, even two feet in your own home, illegal if you are not clear to do so. The law was taken to Court and deemed unconstitutional. The mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian M. Fenty, disagreed with the Court’s decision and challenged it in the United States Court of stirs in whitethorn of 2007.The Court however, refused to hear the case, claiming it was within the limits of the charge up of Rights, so mayor Fenty planned to take the case to the independent Court in July of 2007. Liptak asserted in the article that it was his belief that the Supreme Court would agree to hear the case (Liptak). The endorse Amendment, which has always been very controversial, protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms (Cornell University Law School). Many people believe that by limiting the rights allowed by the warrant Amendment, violent crime rates would decrease.Still others want to keep their constitutional right to carry guns regardless of crime. The Second Amendment is very relevant in today’s society. In a world filled with criminals and violence, we merit to pretend the means to protect ourselves, especially when many criminals carry illegal guns themselves. Imagine a robber breaking into your home in the middle of the night with a gun of his own. Most Americans would feel a lot safer if they had a gun to pr otect not only their families, only when their property as well.Many people feel that by enacting gun control laws, we are putting ourselves at risk since many criminals own guns illegally anyway. The Constitution was written as a means of protecting certain well-bred liberties, one of which is life. Without the Second Amendment, we fall in no means of protecting our lives against the violent criminals who wish to hurt or kill us. In the article, National Briefing: south, South Carolina: Appeal to Supreme Court, the Associated Press introduces readers to the case of an engrossed teenager in South Carolina.The teenager, who at the age of twelve brutally dispatch his grandparents and burned down their home in 2001, was objurgated to thirty years in prison for his crime. At his trial, his lawyers claimed that his crime was a result of a medication he was pickings at the time, Zoloft. When the boy was found guilty, and the sentence was announced, his lawyers planned to take the case to the Supreme Court for violating the 8th Amendment. The Eighth Amendment protects Americans from feral and unusual punishment, excessive fines, and excessive adhesiveness (Cornell University School of Law).Meaning that, certain crimes should not be punished with extreme sentences, huge earnest amounts, or an unreasonable amount of years in prison. For a case such as described above, the punishment seems or so reasonable and about likely the teenager will remain in prison. However, any(prenominal)times criminals are punished excessively for the ground of their crimes. The Eighth Amendment is very relevant in today’s society, because it protects us from being punished to greatly for a diminutive crime. Imagine being minded(p) the cobblers last penalty for a parking violation.Obviously a punishment such as this would be a violation of the plug-in of Rights, and should be. However, without the Eighth Amendment things such as this could happen all the time. We could serve ten years in prison for stealing a piece of bubble gum from the candy store, or be arrested for failure to pay a speeding ticket and have unloosen set at a meg dollars. This type of punishment would be unfair, excessive, cruel, and closely definitely unusual. The Eighth Amendment only protects us from such unfair treatment, and therefore is very important in a commonwealth built on fairness and freedom.Reflection Honestly, the Bill of Rights is probably the approximately important part of the Constitution. It protects our freedoms and rights from being taken away from us, and since our area was built on that foundation, it is important that we sustain our personal rights. I do not really believe that any one of the first ten amendments is more important than the others, but it seems that the First Amendment is the one that is violated the most a great deal. It also seems to be the one amendment that Americans value the most out of the ten.Without the First Amendm ent, should one of the others be violated, we might not have the right to speak up about it in the first place. I also think that the Eighth Amendment is very critical to our country. In other countries people are thrown in prison and put to death for doing silly crimes and that is wrong. The writers of the Bill of Rights were very clever to include this amendment because it protects us from being treated inhumanly. Overall, I think that all of the first ten amendments crop together to protect our rights and freedoms, and thankfully they are usually obeyed.From this assignment I have well-educated a lot. I have always known that the Bill of Rights is important, but I never realized how often it is violated on an individual basis. As a citizen of the United States, I am grateful for the rights I have been given by the Constitution. Many citizens of other countries are not so lucky, and I am afraid that many Americans take these rights for granted. I also did not realize how often n ew amendments are proposed, and moreover, how irrelevant some of the proposed can be. From my research I intimate of one amendment meant to define and protect trades union between a man and a woman.It is very interesting to me what some people consider a personal right. I think that without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution itself would be very vague. Since it speaks of certain civil liberties, it was only logical to list those liberties within the document. When we govern by and enforce the Constitution, we are guaranteed these most important rights and freedoms, which make America a country that is privileged and different from most others across the globe. Thankfully our founding fathers visualized a nation that was democratic and free.Therefore, the Bill of Rights is incredibly valuable to our country and the rights and freedoms that we are given, because without it we might not have soundless exactly what America was meant to be. I can honestly say that I learned a lot b y running(a) through this project, and I think that all students in the United States should have to do similar work to appreciate what they have. plant Cited The Associated Press, â€Å"National Briefing South; South Carolina: Appeal to Supreme Court. ” The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 <http://query. nytimes. com/gst/fullpage. html?res=9900E6DB1E3FF93AA25751C1A9619 C8B63& angstrom;scp=8&sq=eighth+amendment&st=nyt>. Cornell University Law School, â€Å"Bill of Rights. ” Constitution. 2008. Cornell University Law School. 14 May 2008 <http://www. law. cornell. edu/constitution/constitution. billofrights. html>. Halbfinger, David. â€Å"A Witness Startles Court in Pellican Trial. ” The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 <http://www. nytimes. com/2008/04/26/business/media/26pellicano. html? scp=22&sq= amendment&st=nyt>. Liptak, Adam. â€Å"Washington mayor to Take Fight for Gun Law to Supreme Court. ” The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008<http://www. nytimes. com/2007/07/17/us/17guns. html? scp=25&sq=second+amendme nt&st=nyt>. Renquist, â€Å"Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. , Petitioners v. James Dale . ” Findlaw for Legal Professionals. 2008. The United States Supreme Court. 13 May 2008 <http://caselaw. lp. findlaw. com/cgi- bin/getcase. pl? court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-699#section1>. Weiser, Benjamin. â€Å"Police in Gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court. ” The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 <http://www. newyorktimes. com/2008/05/12/nyregion/12guns. html? _r=1&scp=5&sq=a mendment&st=nyt&oref=slogin>.\r\n'