Supreme Court Rulings - Potter v. California Essay

Supreme tribunal Rulings - work v. California - Essay ExampleIt is not only prudent for the politics to protect the civil liberties of its citizens but it is a contractual obligation to do so as stipulated in the Constitutional Bill of Rights. Civil shore leave is in itself a form of natural liberty, set about of which is divested and placed in the hands of the government in order to produce more good and have happiness in the entire community than if it were to remain in the hands of the individual (Cohen 15). Civil liberty as an offshoot of natural liberty for iodin to do as they please is not dependant by the government to the extent that it does not threaten public welfare. Civil liberty in guaranteeing ones liberty to do what they want is limited to injury or harm of others by the put through done. The concept of civil liberties is grounded on liberal theory. Liberal philosophers believed in a state of nature precedent to a political society where individuals were ent irely free to do anything, including killing each other. Creation of societies necessitated the claim to keep people and their possessions secure thus restricting natural liberty as far as necessary for security of everyone. Any natural counterbalance that threatened public order was taken away. The start Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects pays to freedom of construction and freedom of religion from be interfered with by the government. The freedom of carryion is constituted by the rights to freedom of press, speech, implied rights of belief and association, assembly, and right to petition the government in order to pick out a redress of grievances. Interpretation of the extent of protection given to these rights is dumb for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has interpreted The First... The researcher states that the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States protects rights to freedom of expression and freedom of religion from being interfered with by the government. The freedom of expression is constituted by the rights to freedom of press, speech, implied rights of belief and association, assembly, and right to petition the government in order to get a redress of grievances. Interpretation of the extent of protection given to these rights is reserved for the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has interpreted The First Amendment to apply to the federal government. In this case, the researcher believes that Mr. Potter in pleading the First Amendment referred to the arrest as infringing on his freedom of expression. This freedom basically entails freedom of speech and it would be expedient for us to delve into its intricacies. First, the right to freedom of speech gives individuals the right to express themselves with no constraint or interference and indeed Mr. Potter exercised their freedom in this regard. Second, it is a fate by the Supreme Court to give justification for interfering with this cases where it makes an attempt to regulate content of speech. Third, is the right to assemble, which allows people to congregate for lawful and peaceful purposes. The right to belief and association is embedded within this right too, which are the First, the Fifth, and the Fourteenth. Fourth, an individual has the right to petition government in order to obtain redress of their grievances.