The Bill of Rights is Necessary Today - Essay Example

The Bill of Rights is Necessary Today The First Amendment which guarantees free speech, freedom of thepress and religion is located within the U.S. Constitution, specifically in the Bill of Rights, the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution which guarantees every U.S. citizen certain fundamental liberties and rights. Freedom of the press is an extension to the freedom of speech concept. A free press is essential to the idea of democracy and has been accurately described as the ‘Fourth Estate’ of government. As the three branches of government act to check and balance each other, the press watches over them all. The First Amendment is the glue that holds the countries hard-fought-for freedoms intact. The foundation of the American criminal justice system is founded upon the right to due process of law (Fifth Amendment) and the right to a speedy, public and fair trial along with the right to counsel and to confront the accuser, (Sixth Amendment). The Second Amendment 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” (“The Constitution”, 2006). Obviously, the right to own arms was of supreme importance to the Founders given that it was listed second only after the freedom of religion and speech was documented in the First Amendment. These four Amendments are invoked regularly today, argued and debated in and out of court. Each is necessary for the freedoms we all enjoy and as relevant today as they were imagined to be when conceived by the Founding fathers. The First Amendment states “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.” (“The Constitution”, 2006). The Founding Fathers considered a free press one of if not the most important aspect in the formation of a free and democratic society. Though much of American law is patterned from the English legal system, the Founders wanted to distinguish the newly formed government from England where the press was tightly censored. Journalists who questioned the King’s decisions were often jailed or worse. The Founders knew that if the press were not free, the country would not be either. The role of the media is critical to the preservation of freedom itself. The Constitutional right to freedom of expression and of the press includes the un-infringed right to investigate and publicly announce information or to espouse opinion. An effective media outlet must have editorial independence and serve a diversity of public interests uncontrolled by government or ideological influence. An adversarial relationship sometimes exists between mass media and the government regarding the public’s right to know balanced against matters of national security (Center for Democracy and Governance 1999 p. 5). Despite the criticisms of the press, would anyone in this country actually want press to stop doing its job? Journalists, as part of a free press, serve to enlighten the public regarding governmental activities as well as other items of common interest, often placing themselves in harm’s way for the benefit of others. America probably needs the freedom of the press today more so than in any other time in its history. The previous presidential administration stripped away freedoms at an unprecedented rate and ignored global and domestic concerns involving this nation in an illegal and immoral war all under the guise of the ‘war on terror.’ Politicians are as still corrupt as ever. The press should be held to the high standard they set for themselves and revered and recognized for the vital function they provide the country. Without the press and the constitutionally guaranteed freedom it enjoys in this nation, democracy could not endure. If they were to overstep their powers, the American citizens would not know if it were not dedicated journalists who consider it their patriotic duty to guard the interests of the public. The Constitutional guarantee of free speech is increasingly vital due to the emergence of the internet, a networking phenomenon that is helping to enlighten the world’s population and facilitating the current revolutions for democracy. It is a groundbreaking new technology that has amalgamated societies of the country and the world and introduced the concept of truly free expression and the perception that nothing is taboo. Everything is exposed and available at everyone’s literal finger-tip. As efficient and enormously informative as the web is, its content is not overseen as are other communications mediums such as television and radio. The Internet has no physical, ethical or moral boundaries. Lawmakers and legal scholars generally use legal precedents from broadcast media decisions as the model for definitions of indecency and obscenity when developing regulations governing the Internet. No law regarding internet indecency passes constitutional inspection no matter how vigilantly crafted or well intended. “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (“Olmstead”, 1928). The term indecent is vague, confusing and destined for continual debate and evolution. Local judiciaries that try to define it and build moral parameters excluding what is currently perceived indecent from a source based on a worldwide scale is impossible and unwarranted. The biggest casualty to free speech is the individual citizen’s right to make morality decisions and be able to speak freely to others in all regions of the globe. Government cannot legitimize exercising control over internet content which its users are able to control. The Internet has provided many peoples of the world, including the U.S., genuine freedom of speech. Communicating via the computer allows everyone to create any type of subject matter and to distribute it instantly on a global scale. This remarkable progression in the ‘marketplace of ideas’ is a result of the ease of access to the author. Laws that increase regulations and its associated costs to the common webmaster jeopardize this developing modernization and globalization of public dialogue. The First Amendment gives us the freedom to think and express those thoughts. In order to think effectively and act appropriately, one must have credible information which is supplied by a free press. Imagine if a right-wing evangelist were in the White House and could control information, a not too far-fetched possibility given the political reality of the day. The U.S. would become a dictatorship whose citizens would be told how to think and what not to say by the government. This scenario is what the Founders were trying to avoid by penning the words of the First Amendment. Without the First Amendment, America would be a much different place and it must be adhered to if the nation is to remain the shining beacon of freedom for the world. Censorship cannot be allowed within press outlets, the internet or any other form of communication if this society is to be free as the framers of the Constitution intended. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are essential to the U.S. criminal justice system functioning as the framers of the Constitution envisioned it. The omission of all or parts of these Amendments in any phase of the justice system deprives a defendant their right to the due process of law. With regard to criminal procedures, the foremost of these rights is the assumption of innocence. Though not explicitly written into the Constitution, this presumption has been interpreted by several court rulings as implied in the Fifth Amendments. It has become a fundamental right that is universally recognized by the courts and public alike. Under this presumption, defendants are entitled to a presumption of innocence. Defendants do not have to prove their innocence. The government must establish guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ Due process, in essence, is a clause that encompasses the precepts of these Amendments. It protects U.S. citizens from policies or practices which infringe upon basic, fundamental concepts of justice and fairness whether or not actions by the government violate specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights. The criterion of criminal law is whether the disputed policy or practice violates an essential standard of justice and liberty inherent in the concept of a free society. Particularly important to this precept is the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Criminal justice in the U.S. is a complex system involving local, state and federal jurisdictions, all unique in their structure and policies but decisions handed down by any court is based on the due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment guarantees the defendant’s right to ‘due process of law’ and from being subjected to ‘double jeopardy’ or testifying against themselves. Double jeopardy means being put on trial twice for the same offense (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). The ‘Miranda Rights’ are covered by the Fifth Amendment. Even those who have never been issued a traffic citation can recite these rights if they have watched television in the last 40 years. In 1966, the Supreme Court cited the Fifth Amendment in its decision to require law enforcement officials to read every arrestee their rights including the phrase ‘you have the right to remain silent.’ This ensures that the police do not coerce someone into testifying or being a witness against themselves. According to this ruling, “if at any time the suspect indicated a wish to stop talking or to see a lawyer, police had to stop questioning immediately. Failure to deliver the warning, obtain the waiver, or cut off questioning when requested automatically bars the use at trial of statements obtained from the suspect” (Cassell & Markman, 1995). Defendants are guaranteed the right to a ‘speedy trial’ and an ‘impartial jury’ by the Sixth Amendment. Furthermore, it assures that defendants are able to confront, ‘cross examine,’ any witnesses brought by the prosecutor against them and have adequate legal representation to defend their case (U.S. Department of State, 2001). Until relatively recently, the Sixth Amendment was interpreted to mean the defendant had the right to an attorney of their choice but not to be appointed one if they could not afford it. These rights, essential to the concept of freedom have been and continue to be a shining example to the world. However, these precepts have been damaged relatively recently in the nation’s history. The 2004 Supreme Court reversed a federal appeals court which ruled U.S. detainees, specifically the ones at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had no Constitutional right to contest their incarceration to federal courts. This appeals court ruling was deemed as a triumph for the former Bush administration ideology but a defeat for the concept of basic human rights and the constitutionally guaranteed right to a speedy trial. Prisoners were not allowed to petition a court for a writ of habeas corpus and can be held in prison indefinitely without being formerly charged (White, 2007). This certainly seems to defy at least the spirit of the Constitution if not the letter of it. Birmingham, England resident Moazzam Begg had recently relocated from Afghanistan to Pakistan when he was violently kidnapped from his home by armed, masked men. Begg said the last thing he saw as they put a hood over his head was the gunmen heading to his children’s room. The shackled Begg was taken on a long, terror filled van ride then held in a prison before being shipped to Guantanamo Bay. He spent a total of three years in custody without legal representation, a trial or as much as an explanation of why he was being imprisoned. This is hardly the “American Way.” Begg had felt the long reach of the former administration’s power. He was released only after Tony Blair, then Prime Minister of Britain, appealed for his release and now resides back home in Birmingham. Indeed, the executive branch has all the authority it needs to strip away basic civil liberties which are guaranteed by the very Constitution it is sworn to protect and uphold. The majority of the nation believes the Founders installed the right to own arms so citizens would have the ability to protect themselves from that which might endanger their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. This could include bodily protection from persons and animals or from an oppressive government that threatened the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. “The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry, called the ‘general militia’ was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. Those who advocate gun control consider the Second Amendment to be “obsolete; or is intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements” (Krouse, 2002). Gun control advocates generally want the weapon that kills the most people, handguns, to be illegal but are willing to compromise on rifles and shotguns. In this way, the right to bear arms is protected and so are the thousands that die from handguns every year. Of course, when reading the Second Amendment in context, only armed militias have the right to keep and bear arms. However, given the current strong emotions tied to the issue and the popularity of guns in this country, a compromise is the only solution. This is an ongoing debate by this nation. Political ideologies can never die and in politically turbulent times, such as these, are very much alive. Gun ownership ranks high among these political ideologies and attempts to ban all guns makes these feelings even stronger. Yes, the Bill of Rights is necessary, today, yesterday and will be tomorrow as well. These ten first Amendments to the Constitution act as a reinforcement, a clarification to the more ambiguous words of the country’s most hallowed document. The freedom of speech, expression and the press are the very foundations of the freedom intended by the Founders and all those who followed as U.S. citizens. The fairness of a justice system is the measuring stick of that freedom and the right to possess arms the muscle that backs it up with something more tangible than words on paper. Works Cited Cassell, Paul & Markman, Stephen J. “Miranda Rights and the Criminal Justice System.” National Review. (December 25, 1995). Center for Democracy and Governance. “The Role of Media in Democracy: A Strategic Approach.” Bureau for Global Programs, Field Support and Research. Washington D.C.: US Agency for International Development. (June 1999). April 29, 2011 Krouse, William. “Gun Control.” Congressional Research Service. (October 3, 2002). April 29, 2011 “Olmstead v. United States.” Supreme Court Collection. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University. (Decided June 4, 1928). April 29, 2011 < http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0277_0438_ZS.html> “(The) Constitution: The Bill of Rights.” Cornell Law School. (2006). April 29, 2011 White, Josh. “Guantanamo Detainees Lose Appeal.” Washington Post. (February 21, 2007). April 29, 2011 U.S. Department of Justice. “Criminal Justice in the U.S.” Issues of Democracy. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Vol. 6, N. 1. (July 2001). Read More