Posted: August 11th, 2022

The First Amendment to the Constitution

The First Amendment to the Constitution
The First Amendment to the Constitution states “Congress shall make no regulation respecting an institution of faith, or prohibiting the free train thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the proper of the individuals peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Authorities for a redress of grievances.” In 2015, Presidential candidate Donald Trump proposed that he would think about shutting down mosques in the U.S. Assume for the functions of this project that Donald Trump was elected president in 2016 and that he wrote govt orders mandating that these proposals grow to be coverage.

-Take into account Donald Trump’s statements from a Constitutional perspective. Would Trump’s insurance policies violate the First Amendment? Clarify.
-Suppose you’re the lawyer concerned on this case. Which facet would you select to characterize, the U.S. Authorities as the defendant or the congregation of a Muslim mosque as the plaintiffs?
-After deciding your place, please make arguments on behalf of your shopper (both the U.S. Authorities or the Muslim Congregation). Clarify your place utilizing your interpretation of the Constitution and related case regulation.

-paper should be at the very least 1500 phrases.
-Please double area your paper and use commonplace 12-point font.
-Be certain that to proofread your paper earlier than submitting.
-Please comply with APA format when referencing data from exterior sources.
-Please embrace your phrase depend at the finish of your project.

The First Amendment to the Constitution
Throughout the 2015 marketing campaign, Donald Trump as a candidate notably commented that his administration, when he turns into the President, may have completely no alternative however to shut down some mosques that may be recognized to be participating in unhealthy issues or the place terrorists use a spot of arranging their deeds towards the United States and its residents. In accordance to Trump, the transfer of implementing the coverage that can see some mosques shut down will probably be based mostly on the response to terrorist assaults which are thought of to be organized inside these mosques (Gass, 2015). Based mostly on the remark of Donald Trump relating to the insurance policies that may see some mosques being shut down, this paper offers an Assessment of Trump’s assertion in relation to the First Amendment violation. The paper additionally offers the argument towards the implementation of the insurance policies by the U.S. Authorities underneath the administration of Donald Trump as the Current by appearing as the defendant or the congregation of a Muslim mosque.
When contemplating Donald Trump’s assertion from a constitutional perspective, the insurance policies recommended by Trump violets the First Amendment. The First Amendment offers that “Congress shall make no regulation respecting an institution of faith, or prohibiting the free train thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the proper of the individuals peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Authorities for a redress of grievances.” The transfer to shut down mosques will probably be a transparent violation of the proper to any regulation to respect an institution of faith, which is made relevant to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The First Amendment additionally includes the institution of a Clause that gives safety to all people in the United States from authorities actions that may appear to be favoring or disfavoring explicit religions. The Authorities can be precluded from enterprise actions that may make people of a selected faith really feel that they’re focused or outsiders whereas they’re in the nation or state. Due to this fact, regardless of the insurance policies proposed by Trump of shutting down some mosques having its justifications, it would nonetheless intrude with the institution of the Islamic faith, which violates the First Amendment. The actions can even see Muslims thought of as targets or terrorists with their place of worship as targets that will probably be thought of as disfavoring the Islamic faith, which can be unconstitutional.
The First Amendment offers the freedom to select and the freedom to act in a non secular perspective, which additionally contains the freedom to speech. The assertion by Trump relating to shutting down mosques might be thought of unconstitutional if the clear and current hazard is just not established earlier than the shutdown. With all freedom having their limitation, the First Amendment that protects the mosques from being shut down based mostly on Trump’s assertion may be overpassed if the administration is in a position to present a check of the regulator of non secular thought. For the assertion to be unconstitutional, the Authorities would have to show that the content material and method of non secular speech being utilized in the mosques label particular concepts which are uttered by clerics which are thought of harmful to the safety of the United States and its residents.
Nevertheless, in accordance to the assertion supplied by Trump, and the scenario surrounding it at the time of creating, it’s clear that the intention is just not to use the proper channels reminiscent of the Constitution check in consideration of which mosque must be shut down due to the engagement or affiliation with the terrorism actions. The assertion by Trump deliberately targets Muslims, with the overwhelming intent to undermine the First Amendment by interfering with the Muslim place of worship based mostly on the views of terrorisms. The First Amendment ensures the proper to petition, which additionally is perhaps violated by the implementation of Trump’s assertion. Shutting down mosques with out conducting a radical investigation and different intelligence measures to decide the hyperlink of the mosque or its management to the terrorist teams or actions will see the proper to petition denied. Due to this fact, the assertion made by Trump throughout his marketing campaign violates the First Amendment at varied ranges, together with freedom of faith by interfering with a spot of worship, the freedom of meeting by shutting down the mosques, and the proper to petition by not following the required procedures and processes to set up and check the mosque involvement in harmful actions or speech to the safety of the United States and its residents.
As a consultant of the Muslim Congregation, the proof that may be introduced towards Trump’s assertion as a violation of the First Amendment may be based mostly on the assertion made, whereby Donald Trump referred to as for a complete and full shutdown of Muslims getting into the United States or shutting down mosques till the nation figures out the terrorism scenario. In accordance to the assertion made by Trump, the mosques had been then related to both organizing the terrorism acts or had been being utilized by terrorists as the middle of recruitment and internet hosting religiously motivated terrorists. Nevertheless, the allegation towards the mosques introduced by the Authorities doesn’t maintain substantial perspective, nor are they supported by substantial proof, however solely exhibits the violation of the First Amendment provided to people worshiping in the mosques to be shut down by recommended insurance policies (Cole, 2016). The Court docket, on this case, ought to then thought of first the fundamentals and significance of respecting and adhering to the rule of regulation as stipulated by the Constitution of the United States underneath the First Amendment. The Court docket must also think about the components surrounding the mentioned insurance policies that may see harmless residents of the United States, who ought to take pleasure in their proper to worship, being denied the proper due to speculations that haven’t been effectively investigated and examined.
The adoption of Trump’s insurance policies will contract varied choices beforehand made relating to the First Amendment associated conditions. For example, there are numerous incidents which were witnessed in the united state associated to spiritual violence in the previous which are organized and doctrinally pushed. The incidents, which typically had been thought to be terrorists’ assaults due to the attacking nature which focused harmless bystanders, have all the time been remoted with the affiliation of the mosques. For example, the Court docket ought to think about components thought of in instances reminiscent of that of 1994, the place 4 defendants had been sentenced to 240 years every for enjoying a job in a bombing that noticed six individuals misplaced their lives and a number of injured. The Court docket, throughout the trial of the 4, it ignored the spiritual perception that may be used as a manner of that motivated their participation in the bombing, however solely targeted on their actions, which was thought of as terrorisms. Due to this fact, the consideration of the insurance policies which are recommended, which can see mosques being shut down due to the connection between the particular person related to terrorist actions, will probably be a complete violation of the First Amendment. As a substitute, the people related to terrorism must be instantly subjected to the regulation with out consideration of their spiritual beliefs.
The Court docket must also stop the implementation of Trump’s authorities insurance policies of shutting down mosques since contemplating the acts of people who’re conducting violence in the identify of non secular responsibility, and on this case, who’re Muslims is on no account confined to radical Islamic sects. The notion that spiritual perception and spiritual conduct are distinguishable pervades the Supreme Court docket’s Free Train Clause jurisprudence. Due to this fact, regardless of the energy invested in the Authorities to management or regulate spiritual conduct, spiritual perception enjoys whole safety from authorities intrusion. The mentioned insurance policies, when carried out by Trump’s administration, will see the freedom of conscience and freedom to adhere to spiritual group or type of worship as the particular person might select being restricted. The scenario is just not solely about Muslims or the mosques’ roles in the mentioned terrorist actions however enters the spiritual group. As we speak the administration could also be contemplating the shutting down of mosques as the answer, however the similar can occur in Christian, slightly than Islamic, fundamentalism. Reynolds v. the United States, the Supreme Court docket supplied that the state might not intrude upon the sacred realm of non secular consciousness. The Court docket stood by the indisputable fact that the deserves of o veracity of a selected spiritual apply or perception shouldn’t be utilized in defining one’s actions which are illegal associated.
Due to this fact, in accordance to the First Amendment and varied instances associated to the difficulty in context, the Court docket ought to make sure that the required processes are adhered to, together with the “clear and current hazard” check (Grinstein, n.d). Because it can’t be dismissed that there’s a chance of some mosques that is perhaps utilized by terrorists or as a bass of organizing such actions, the deployment of the proper measures ought to as an alternative be adopted by the Authorities. The proper measures ought to embrace all safety businesses, with clear investigative procedures and processes being carried out, slightly than shutting down the mosque, which is a complete violation of the First Amendment.

References
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303-04 (1940).
Cole, D. (2016). Why Trump’s Proposed Concentrating on of Muslims Would Be Unconstitutional. ACLU. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/weblog/religious-liberty/free-exercise-religion/why-trumps-proposed-targeting-muslims-would-be
Gass, N. (2015). Trump: ‘Completely no alternative’ however to shut mosques. Politico. Retrieve from https://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/trump-close-mosques-216008
Grinstein, J. (n.d). Jihad and the Constitution: The First Amendment Implications of Combating Religiously Motivated Terrorism. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.regulation.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7674&context=ylj
Bernstein, R. (1994). Commerce Heart Bombers Get Jail Phrases of 240 Years, N.Y. TIMES.
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166 (1878).

Order | Check Discount

Tags: The First Amendment to the Constitution