The first Amendment has many advantages, such as giving citizens freedom, and they make it better and appreciated by many people. The liberties provided by the constitution cover every aspect of a person, including freedom of speech, freedom to practice their religion, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, and the freedom to petition the government. Essentially, the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition.
Analyzing President Eisenhower’s Broadcast
The Back to God program of the American Legion was a campaign by an organization made up of veteran American war veteran soldiers. The program aimed to encourage American citizens to be more reverent to God in their personal lives. President Eisenhower made it clear in his broadcast that God is the Supreme being and every person is under him.
According to the President, God has the power to grant people every right and not the government, and it was evident the Founding Fathers acknowledged God as the author of individual rights. It is the work of the government to ensure that those rights are protected. The late President Eisenhower did not agree that government has the ability to offer human rights because if it can, then it can as well take away those rights at any time.
God is the one who ensures the government is created and maintained without crumbling; therefore, we need to put God first as the leader. According to the First Amendment, the President was able to exercise his freedom of speech which the constitution allows everyone to exercise as long as it does not incite any act of mayhem or hateful (Epstein et al., 2017). Freedom of speech should be exercised in a manner that shows respect to others. In this case, the President’s broadcast did not have any hostile intention, and he encouraged his fellow citizens to acknowledge the presence of God in governing the United States. In the broadcast, no defamation was targeted against anyone since it would have been against free speech rights. He did not provoke anyone to fight but tried to convince the listeners to view things his way, which is not against the constitution.
The President also exercised his freedom to practice his religion. He encouraged his listeners to turn to God for guidance in their daily endeavors and ask God for protection at all times so that we may have a government that will secure its people’s rights which will continue even to the next generation. The President accepted that the veterans had a right to assemble and even encouraged Americans to join the “American Legion” in their Back to God program. The President could exercise his own opinions without trying to free anyone to join the campaign.
He persuaded people to follow him by convincing them that God is the Supreme and he is the one who gives us those rights that the First Amendment contains. The President was respectful in his broadcast and did not hate anyone or try to discriminate against people based on their beliefs. The President was happy about the movement because it was a movement which had a good cause which was to increase awareness about God in our lives.
He appreciated that there are different creeds, but in all the doctrines, God is constant, and we should join hands in ensuring that we all accept God into our lives. The President was not forcing anyone to join the campaign but trying to convince them to support it by using his life as a soldier and also giving an example of how soldiers in war all turn to God for encouragement and protection even though some may not be religious but during the time of war everyone has the same belief in God as a protector.
How the First Amendment Has Impacted my Life
The First Amendment has brought a lot of improvements to people’s way of living and has impacted a lot on their quality of life. The constitution allows me to have many rights, enabling me to live and enjoy life as a citizen fully. I can express my opinions on any subject without fear of being victimized due to probably having a different opinion from others as long as I am also respectful of their opinions.
The first Amendment has other advantages citizens enjoy, such as the freedom to practice religion. This has greatly impacted my life since religion is very delicate to people. Other religious people may belittle people from different religions from theirs, and this can create animosity if it is not stopped. Therefore, having the luxury of choosing whichever religion I am interested in without suppression from the government and my fellow citizens has improved my well-being, making my life have balance.
Being in a country where I can gather people who carry the same ideologies that I have and organize or assemble group meetings to spread my ideologies is a beautiful thing. The constitution allows people to assemble without fear of being arrested by law enforcement and not having to be scared of being viewed as criminals. If at any moment I feel dissatisfied with how the government is functioning, I am entitled by the First Amendment to petition the government or even take the government to court if need be. This is fundamental because elected leaders may be incompetent in carrying out their duties fairly. Therefore, with this privilege of petitioning, I can air my views on what I think the government is doing wrong, and I will be heard without being suppressed by any Government authority.
I am also allowed through the constitution to picket or demonstrate my grievances as long as it is done peacefully without any violence. Demonstrations are good because they remind the current leaders always to deliver what they promise when they need to be elected to these leadership positions. Therefore, with these in mind, being an American citizen becomes a huge advantage because I enjoy human rights and the freedom to live and express myself in any form I want to, provided I can be understood.
Conclusion
Countries governed democratically advance better because the citizens can have their human rights, which makes the country grow holistically. People are more productive when allowed freedom of expression since everything comes down to expressing your opinions or ideas. This is the only way a country can prosper, where everyone is free to be who they are. When people respectfully embrace each other’s rights, nothing can stop them from prospering.
Quiz
- What is NOT an element of the Lemon test? Religious tests for citizenship
- What case (whole case name, but not citation) prompted the Lemon test? Lemon v Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971)
- Analyze the following fact pattern: A football coach at a public high school prays with the entire student team before each game on the field. During the prayer, he mentions God, claps his hands, and bows his head for the entire school to see.
Is the school
- Violating the coach’s First Amendments Rights if they say he can’t do that? Why or why not. Discuss at least one case from the court in relation to the situation.
Given that the coach is a public employee, which can be interpreted that he represents the government, the school does not violate the coach’s First Amendment. First Amendment guarantees everyone the freedom of expression and religion but bars the government from getting entangled. Therefore, the fact that the coach leads a prayer in a manner that suggests his intentions to get everyone on board is a form of governmental endorsement of religion in public school, which the Supreme Court has ruled against in many court cases, such as in Lee v Weisman (1992).
- Violating the First Amendment of the students and other fans by allowing the coach to continue prayers? Why or why not. Discuss at least one case from the course in relation to the situation.
The school would violate the First Amendment rights of the student and other fans by imposing religion on them. In addition, the school is a public institution that is not supposed to interfere with people’s religious beliefs. Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) established the conditions under which the government can assist or interact with religion. It forbade excessive entanglement between a public institution and the church.
- If you worked as a minister at a church and disagreed about why you were fired from your position, you can get help from the government in resolving the issue.
False
- In U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938), the court’s opinion mentioned “preferred freedoms,” stating the judiciary must take special care to protect the rights of minorities and those with unpopular opinions.
False
- In United States v. Ballard, the court held “religion” is based on ___of beliefs rather than the truth.
Absurdity
- Which Amendment summarizes the freedom of religion?____
First Amendment
- In Article VI of the Constitution, what does it say about religion?
No religious test to hold office
- What phrase was removed from the Act which determines whom can be exempted from the military due to their religious beliefs after the ruling in United States v. Seeger?Â
Under God
- Rhode Island makes a law specifying everyone riding an electric bike on public roads must wear long pants. Smith, a devout Southern-Baptist woman, rides her electric bike, along with her girls and boys, to school every day. Smith’s sincerely held practice of her faith commands her and her girls to wear only long skirts and never pants. Answer the following questions.
Does the law interfere with Smith’s free exercise of her faith? Why or why not?
The law indeed interferes with Smith’s free exercise of her faith. Wearing long skirts is part of her religious exercise, which the Constitution guarantees.
Is there a valid secular reason for the law? Why or why not?
There is no justifiable secular reason for the law to interfere with Smith’s free exercise of her faith. Smith is not a threat to anyone or anything.
Is there a less restrictive way to write the law? If so, what? If not, why?
There is a less restrictive way to write the law. It should state that men must wear long pants while riding the electric bike, while women should have a long cloth of their choice covering their legs.
If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, would you say the law is constitutional? Why or why not?
I would say the law is unconstitutional since it compels everyone to wear the same clothing without factoring in the idea of gender, religion, and other critical issues.
- What are three examples of speech not protected by the First Amendment
- True threats
- Speech that provokes listeners into lawlessness
- Fighting words
- In U.S. v. Abrams, the court added to the language created in Schunk and started using the “bad tendency test.” How did this affect government regulation of speech?
- The government managed to have almost all the anti-seditious cases ruled in its favor by the Supreme Court.
- In U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938), the court’s opinion mentioned “preferred freedoms,” stating the judiciary must take special care to protect the rights of minorities and those with unpopular opinions. False
- According to Stromberg (1931), laws that ban certain speech must be. Protected
- What are the three legal problems with the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which penalized with a 1-year jail term and a $1000 fine for anyone who “knowingly mutilates, defaces, physically defiles, burns, maintains on the floor or ground or tramples upon any flag of the United States?”
- Preserving the flag as a national symbol outweighed a person’s 1st Amendment rights
- The government’s interest was to preserve the flag
- Limited people’s expressive conduct
- If the government want to regulate speech based on the Content of Speech, what level of scrutiny will the court use to determine if the regulation is unconstitutional? Strict scrutiny
- A high school student makes signs saying, “Don’t vote for Sandra for Homecoming Court because she is not a vegetarian, and we think eating meat is wrong.” Sandra is not a vegetarian and has been very outspoken in her viewpoint that humans are carnivores (meat eaters) for a reason and should eat meat. Sandra loses her spot on the Court to students who are all vegetarians. Sandra says her First Amendment freedom of speech has been violated. Is this correct? Why or why not?
This is not correct. Being a vegetarian or not has nothing to do with First Amendment freedom of speech.
Reference
Epstein, L., Mcguire, K. T., & Walker, T. G. (2017). Constitutional law for a changing America rights, liberties, and justice 11th edition. SAGE Publications.