The First and Second Amendments
The American constitution lays out basic freedoms that all citizens of the U.S. are entitled to. Despite being ensured by the government that people indeed have these rights, American citizens often find such rights being compromised when their safety is in jeopardy.
Throughout history, there have been many events that resulted in increased security and controversial measures that seemingly violated said rights. Such events include Columbine in the early 1990s and the event with the most dramatic consequences being the attacks on September 11th.
The government argues that its policies are put in place to protect. However, the American people are not willing to give up their freedoms without a fight, demonstrated by the aftermath of the Cold War in the 1960s and the reactions to the invasive measures put in place after 9/11.
The first amendment of the Constitution 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.
Of course, these rights are put into place to protect the freedoms of the American people, but should these rights be infringed on when people’s actions become offensive to the United States or even dangerous to its people?
One example that instantly comes to mind is the Westboro Baptist Church and their protests at fallen soldiers’ funerals. Not only that, but they also THANK God for aids, 9/11, dead soldiers, and claim that “God hates fags and all of America.”
On the Westboro Baptist church website, called “God hates fags”, the side panel says that GOD has killed 6,910 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They also refer to the country as “doomed America” repeatedly. The church has been picketing events such as funerals of killed soldiers for 1344 consecutive weeks as of today.
The protests that this church hold are terribly offensive and devastating to the families of the fallen soldiers they choose to harass. However, they are protected under the first amendment to hold such protests and although demoralizing to the families and degrading to America as a whole, they do not impose a safety threat.
On the other hand, should the First Amendment be upheld when safety IS in jeopardy? This is the question that many Americans are beginning to ask during President Trump’s call for a Muslim ban. According to CNN, “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. ” He has also suggested surveillance in mosques and opening a database for all Muslims living in America.
President Trump’s reasoning for this decision is “until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in Jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life.”
The message from Trump comes in relation to a deadly mass shooting that happened in San Bernardino, California. The perpetrators of this crime were suspected ISIS sympathizers, proving that Trump believes allowing Muslims into this country is a threat to security.
Some people support Trump’s call for the ban, arguing that the first amendment only applies to people who are already living in the U.S., or that the first amendment does not apply during times of war when the safety of an entire nation and its people are at stake.
Others, however, such as Obama’s deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes argue that such a ban is “totally contrary to our values as Americans.”
But what about the problems in America right now regarding the Second Amendment? The constitution states
a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment gives American people the right to own guns. The debate right now is whether or not this makes citizens safer or more dangerous.
The benefits to this are obviously being able to protect yourself in the face of danger. Not only that, but it is granted in the constitution that U.S. citizens do indeed have this freedom.
In order for someone to buy a gun (in Illinois at least), you must have a valid ID, fill out a six-page 4473 form that is used to run a background check, complete an ATF form including questions on criminal and mental history, wait for a background check from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and finally — if all of these steps check out — you are permitted to purchase a firearm.
Contrary to the benefit of protection is the downside of possibly a higher sense of threat. With the rising number of mass shootings in America in recent years, (the deadliest ones can be reached above) many Americans are beginning to question whether this freedom should still be granted.
Click here to visit the next article
