Boy Scouts of America

This controversial offset printing Amendment theme was heard by the United States peremptory motor inn in 2000, on appeal from modern Jerseys Superior court of justice. The dispute arose between the boy pickets of the States, specific anyy a unexampled Jersey troop, and a man named James Dale. Dale was an adult son Scout and a troop leader in New Jersey. He was withal openly homosexual and a gay rights activist. The Boy Scouts were non awake of Dales sexual orientation until he awaited a seminar that dealt with the demand of homosexual teenagers which was covered by a local newspaper.When the Boy Scouts observe that Dale was in fact a homosexual, they kicked him out of the organization, claiming that his sexual orientation this instant opposed the values they appe decenniumcyed to instill in the young members of their classify. Dale filed suit in the New Jersey Superior Court. He asserted that when the Boy Scouts revoked his rank and file, they profaned New Jersey natural law. That law forbids discrimination based on a persons sexual orientation in places of public accommodations. The Court ruled in favor of Dale. The Boy Scouts however, believed that their original right of expressive association had been violated.That depression Amendment right allows organizations with selective membership standards to forbid membership to any angiotensin converting enzyme who does not meet those standards. The Boy Scouts appealed the judgment to federal court. At the ultimate Court, the stopping point of the state court was overturned, ruling in favor of the Boy Scouts. The Court provided that the Boy Scouts were selective in accepting members into the organization since they tho accept boys over the age of ten, and in that locationfore the group had unless ripe their First Amendment right of expressive association.Furtherto a greater extent, the scout oath illustrated the groups opposition to homosexual behavior. When members say the oath, they p romise to keep themselves morally great. Alongside the membership standards, the oath essentially won the case. This case, while controversial, was obstinate correctly. The freedom to associate allows groups to gather for any purpose. The freedom of speech allows those groups to let out of their ideas. Freedom of expression is really unless a combination of the two. The First Amendment fosters groups from being constrained to fit members who directly defy their purposes.The same would form applied no matter the group in question. Imagine if the NAACP was pressure to admit a man who openly expressed hatred toward African the Statesns, or a group meant for veterans that was coerce to admit an anti-war advocate. This type of forced inclusion into the organization would really disrupt the business of the group. Sometimes, it would make the group pointless altogether. Most deally we would not see membership refusals much(prenominal) as those mentioned as a case of discriminat ion. It is simply a dispute of interest.The irresponsible Courts purpose in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale is extremely relevant to society as a whole, especially to those separates who ar members of certain organizations who practice selective membership standards. No one wants to attend a church that was forced to hire an atheist preacher. No microscopic girl wants to show up to her Girl Scout meeting to keep an shopping center on that a little boy has become her fellow scout. As individuals, we like to surround ourselves with people who function similar qualities and characteristics with us.We enjoy gathering with others who share our opinions and purposes. Had the autonomous Court ruled differently in this case, this type of practise could easily be considered discriminatory and punishable by law. While the decision was unfortunate for James Dale, it upheld the Boy Scouts constitutional rights, and nurseed societys rights as well. In the article, Police in gasoline Searches Face indecision in Court, New York Times newsman Benjamin Weiser discusses the growing wind of unconstitutional searches conducted by legal philosophy officers in whitethorn of 2008.One such vile search happened in New York to a man who was occupying a pistol. In court, the officers involved testified that they had just cause to search the curious. They claimed, He was loitering, sweating nervously and had a bulge under his jacket (Weiser). The judge however, found that the officers tosh was untrue, and that they had searched the man outlaw(prenominal)ly, violating the twenty-five percent Amendment. Since the gun could not be used as evidence, the case was thrown out. Weisers research indicates that this type of situation occurs more often than we big businessman conceive of.He provides that in the last six years there have been twenty similar cases in New York City alone, where police officers unconstitutionally searched suspects, often resulting in the release of criminals who illegally carry fire munition (Weiser). The Fourth Amendment protects Americans from search and seizure without probable cause, and this includes searches for weapons by police officers. The fact that these special(prenominal) officers violated the Fourth Amendment is unfortunate, because their behavior put criminals back onto the streets.However, there was null that the judges that heard the cases could do, because the amount of Rights applies to all Americans, criminals included. While society might prefer that the Fourth Amendment not apply to criminal suspects, the Constitution was meant to protect all people. It would be unfair to be searched without cause, especially if a suspect was not carrying an illegal weapon. The amendment is important in that it protects e really aspect of our in-person lives.Without it, the police could barge into our homes and puddle anything that they wanted, confiscate our cars, or seize anything we carry with us, activities t hat certainly do not constitute a free democracy. In the article, A Witness Startles Court in Pellicano Trial, New York Times reporter David Halbfinger tells the story of a attend pleading the fifth in a Los Angeles court room in April of 2008. The struggle was that of Anthony Pellicano, a private eye accused of wiretapping on behalf of his rich and famous clients.During cross examination, witness Phyllis moth miller was asked questions about her own involvement in the case. A lawyer got her to admit that she was guilty of a crime herself. After a number of questions were asked, of which she responded to, milling machine refused to answer any more self incriminating questions, pleading the fifth. However, the responses she did contri howevere now have her facing charges of her own of perjury and fraud. The Fifth Amendment deals with prongy jeopardy, the due process of the law, and the testimony witnesses in campaign.Specifically stating that no person, shall be compelled in an y criminal case to be a witness against himself (Cornell University justice School). This amendment protects individuals from being forced to testify during their own trials, which might lead to a guilty verdict. The Fifth Amendment is rattling relevant to society, in that it not only protects us from being charged multiple times for the same crime, only if also allows us to keep quiet when we are on trial ourselves. Imagine a guilty man on trial forced to testify truthfully about a murder he committed.Most liable(predicate) his answers would not be honest anyway, so why ask him to gibber at all? Furthermore, imagine his wife testifying about what happened on the dark of the crime. If the woman is asked questions about her involvement which might lead to a trial of her own, it is unfair to force her to babble out. The Fifth Amendment in its entirety is important for Americans, because it deals with the security measure of our personal lives and liberties. Being forced to tes tify as a witness to another persons trial should not mean that we to be put on trial.In the article, Washington whitethornor to Take Fight for Gun police force to Supreme Court, New York Times reporter Adam Liptak discusses a controversial gun control law out of Washington D. C.. That very strict law made carrying a gun, even two feet in your own home, illegal if you are not licensed to do so. The law was taken to Court and deemed unconstitutional. The mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian M. Fenty, disagreed with the Courts decision and challenged it in the United States Court of Appeals in May of 2007.The Court however, refused to retry the case, claiming it was within the limits of the Bill of Rights, so Mayor Fenty planned to take the case to the Supreme Court in July of 2007. Liptak asserted in the article that it was his dogma that the Supreme Court would agree to hear the case (Liptak). The Second Amendment, which has evermore been very controversial, protects an indi viduals right to keep and bear arms (Cornell University Law School). Many people believe that by limiting the rights allowed by the Second Amendment, violent crime rates would decrease.Still others want to keep their constitutional right to carry guns regardless of crime. The Second Amendment is very relevant in todays society. In a world filled with criminals and violence, we be to have the means to protect ourselves, especially when many criminals carry illegal guns themselves. Imagine a robber breaking into your home in the inwardness of the night with a gun of his own. Most Americans would feel much safer if they had a gun to protect not only their families, but their property as well.Many people feel that by enacting gun control laws, we are lay ourselves at risk since many criminals own guns illegally anyway. The Constitution was create verbally as a means of protecting certain courteous liberties, one of which is life. Without the Second Amendment, we have no means of pr otecting our lives against the violent criminals who wish to hurt or kill us. In the article, National Briefing conspiracy, South Carolina Appeal to Supreme Court, the Associated Press introduces readers to the case of an im prisoned teenager in South Carolina.The teenager, who at the age of twelve brutally murdered his grandparents and destroy down their home in 2001, was sentenced to thirty years in prison for his crime. At his trial, his lawyers claimed that his crime was a result of a medication he was taking at the time, Zoloft. When the boy was found guilty, and the sentence was announced, his lawyers planned to take the case to the Supreme Court for violating the 8th Amendment. The Eighth Amendment protects Americans from cruel and strange penalty, excessive fines, and excessive bail (Cornell University School of Law).Meaning that, certain crimes should not be punished with extreme sentences, huge bail amounts, or an unreasonable amount of years in prison. For a case suc h as depict above, the punishment seems around reasonable and most likely the teenager testament remain in prison. However, sometimes criminals are punished excessively for the reaching of their crimes. The Eighth Amendment is very relevant in todays society, because it protects us from being punished to greatly for a small crime. Imagine being given the death penalty for a parking violation.Obviously a punishment such as this would be a violation of the Bill of Rights, and should be. However, without the Eighth Amendment things such as this could happen all the time. We could serve ten years in prison for stealing a piece of bubble mutter from the candy store, or be arrested for failure to pay a swiftness ticket and have bail set at a cardinal dollars. This type of punishment would be unfair, excessive, cruel, and most definitely unusual. The Eighth Amendment only protects us from such unfair treatment, and therefore is very important in a outlandish built on fairness and f reedom.Reflection Honestly, the Bill of Rights is in all likelihood the most important part of the Constitution. It protects our freedoms and rights from being taken away from us, and since our state of matter was built on that foundation, it is important that we retain our personal rights. I do not really believe that any one of the first ten amendments is more important than the others, but it seems that the First Amendment is the one that is violated the most often. It also seems to be the one amendment that Americans value the most out of the ten.Without the First Amendment, should one of the others be violated, we might not have the right to speak up about it in the first place. I also think that the Eighth Amendment is very critical to our republic. In other countries people are thrown in prison and put to death for doing silly crimes and that is wrong. The writers of the Bill of Rights were very clever to include this amendment because it protects us from being treated inh umanly. Overall, I think that all of the first ten amendments work together to protect our rights and freedoms, and thankfully they are usually obeyed.From this assignment I have knowledgeable a lot. I have always known that the Bill of Rights is important, but I never realized how often it is violated on an individual basis. As a citizen of the United States, I am grateful for the rights I have been given by the Constitution. Many citizens of other countries are not so lucky, and I am afraid that many Americans take these rights for granted. I also did not realize how often new amendments are proposed, and moreover, how orthogonal some of the proposed can be. From my research I learned of one amendment meant to desex and protect marriage between a man and a woman.It is very interesting to me what some people consider a personal right. I think that without the Bill of Rights, the Constitution itself would be very vague. Since it speaks of certain civil liberties, it was only logi cal to list those liberties within the document. When we govern by and give the Constitution, we are guaranteed these most important rights and freedoms, which make America a country that is privileged and different from most others across the globe. Thankfully our founding fathers figure a nation that was democratic and free.Therefore, the Bill of Rights is incredibly valuable to our country and the rights and freedoms that we are given, because without it we might not have understood exactly what America was meant to be. I can honestly say that I learned a lot by working through this project, and I think that all students in the United States should have to do similar work to hold what they have. Works Cited The Associated Press, National Briefing South South Carolina Appeal to Supreme Court. The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 . Cornell University Law School, Bill of Rights. Constitution. 2008. Cornell University Law School. 14 May 2008 . Halbfinger, David. A Witness Startles Court in Pellican Trial. The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 . Liptak, Adam. Washington Mayor to Take Fight for Gun Law to Supreme Court. The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008. Renquist, Boy Scouts of America and Monmouth Council, et al. , Petitioners v. James Dale . Findlaw for Legal Professionals. 2008. The United States Supreme Court. 13 May 2008 . Weiser, Benjamin. Police in Gun Searches Face Disbelief in Court. The New York Times 12 May 2008 14 May 2008 .