In 1945, the High Court of Australia heard the case of Gratwick v Johnson and ultimately decided to dismiss the appeal in a unanimous decision by the Judges. While different reasoning was employed, all five judges drew the conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed as the statute the defendant was charged under was inconsistent with s.92 of the Australian Constitution. To provide some context for this case in 1944, Dulcie Johnson was charged with an offence against the National Security Act 1939-1943 in that she did contravene par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order by travelling from South Australia to Western Australia by rail. In brief terms par.3 of the Restriction of Interstate Passenger Transport Order provided that no person shall, without a valid permit, travel from state to state or territory.
Does the First Amendment, Free Expression Clause, apply to the New York State law against Criminal Anarchy, depriving Giltow of his liberty of expression under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Benjamin Gitlow, a member of the Socialist Party of America, advocated the overthrow of organized government by force, violence, and other unlawful means through his Left Wing Manifesto. He was arrested and charged with criminal Anarchy, “the policy that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence... or by any unlawful means. The advocacy of such doctrine either by word of mouth or writing is a felony”. Gitlow argued that the New York law was an unconstitutional limit forced by the state on the rights guaranteed
Mohammad Haneef & Erosion of Civil Liberties Weland La ‘Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties.’ Discuss this statement in light of the Haneef Case and one other issue (such as the right to silence, privacy, etc.), commenting on the extent to which the law balances the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety. In correlation with the Haneef Case, Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties as demonstrated by NSW’s introduction of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013.
To be honest I wouldn’t give up my freedom for increased security from terrorism. Benjamin Franklin stated, “They who would give up essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.” I couldn’t have said it any better. We have been fighting for our rights for a very long time. Many people have died to ensure that people have liberties.
An illustration of this would be the passage of the Patriot Act in the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The Patriot Act granted law enforcement agencies expanded authority to search and monitor anyone suspected of involvement in terrorist activities without obtaining a warrant from a judge. This was considered an infringement on civil freedoms since it allowed the government to conduct surveillance on its citizens without first providing them with a fair
Trevor Coulombe 26/9/15 Should civil liberties be suspended during national emergency? In the UK citizens are given several different civil liberties: the right to life; freedom of expression; freedom of religion and conscience; freedom of movement; freedom of association; the right to protest; freedom from arbitrary arrest; freedom from torture; the right to fair trial; political rights and property rights. In looking at these civil liberties a paradox is presented.
A responsible and accountable democratic government must dismiss its duty to preserve the rights of the person(s) in order to keep the security and safety of a nation as a whole. That is why these laws and acts are created by the government. The nation should still embrace the perspective of the source as long as the will of the people does not interfere with the security and peace of the nation as a
My third amendment I want to consider changing the 12th amendment the election of the president and vice president. This amendment was created to tie the electoral college in the president and vice president election. My reasoning is that whoever can vote should be able to choose who they want as president not the electoral college. This should be abolished because this country is a democracy and the popular vote should count not the electoral votes (Debate.com). With Hillary Clinton, more than 300,000 votes ahead of President Donald Trump in the popular vote count as of the election calls have already begun to ditch the Electoral College system enshrined in the Constitution for choosing presidents (Editorial Board).
After working on my Civil Liberties case study all night, I wake up with 2 hours of sleep and grab my phone from the nightstand to check the time. It’s 8:45 AM and I think to myself: “I have 15 minutes to make it to my 9AM shift at Freebirds World Burrito and it’s too late to catch the Metro. Anxiously, I grab whatever pants I find on my bedroom floor, brush my teeth, and order a Lyft. Once I hop in the car, I make quick conversation with my driver and nervously check the traffic, hoping I’ll make it in time.
Prior to the US constitution and any acts for civil rights, people have always desired certain rights and liberties that were once considered far from reach. The Bill of Rights outlines the basic rights, such as freedom of speech, the right to a fair court trial, and the right to vote. Although these civil liberties were written into the constriction it would be decades of struggle and sacrifice before they would apply to all men and women. Civil rights give people the right not to be treated unequally based on certain characteristic, such as their race. Although the Bill of Rights were established, it was not specific enough to include everyone.
The people are giving up some of their right so the government will protect them. The first amendment is “freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition” The first amendment is similar to the social contract because in a way the government is promising to protect you in exchange for some of your rights.
It takes away freedom and security from all citizens. It gives the government an absolute form of power. As shown through historical context and recent events they will most certainly abuse this power. Americans as a whole are an oxymoron when it comes to events like these as they would willingly give up liberty for security. The real irony is that America sees more gun shootings than any terrorist act, but yet they are not willing to give up their freedom to own
The Importance of the 1st Amendment In 1787 our founding fathers assembled the constitution of the United States of America. Of this which contains the most important document to the American citizen, the Bill of rights. 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” These freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights are often known as freedom of expression. These rights are most important to a truly free society. The first amendment provides us with new ideas and dismisses the fear of punishment
Civil rights? No, not for Michael Brown. After all he was just an unarmed African-American who was shot and killed at the age of 18 by police unjustifiably. What about Freddie Gray? The 25-year-old African-American man who was taken into custody for possessing an illegal switchblade which he never actually had.
population about this policy are controversial and have been hot topics in the news ever since. Lastly, the fallout after 9/11 associating with the USA PATRIOT Act has brought Americans to become suspicious of their own government. They were completely unaware of the FBI’s database meant to spy on them and gather exceptionally personal information. The amount of focus people have placed upon their leaders has made the country more lawful and
