American Politics have a variety of subjects. We are able to debate over our government officials, sports teams, and even our American way of life. However, along with the politics we are also able to find a sense of hypocrisy in the American spirit. America was unfortunately found upon greed, and power; and this still reigns true today. In the textbook “American Government” by Cal Jillson, the author interprets these political views and by doing so helps to see and understand the American Government in a whole new light. In this paper I will summarize the chapter and discuss the beginning of America within the specified topics of “The Origins of the Bill of Rights” (pg.416), “Freedom of Expression: Speech and Press” (pg.418), and the “Freedom
…show more content…
416). Patrick Henry seized this opportunity by using it as the “key reason” (pg.416) to convince more states not to ratify the constitution. After the Bill of Rights were established by James Madison, things began to fall apart in the story of America’s beginning. They created these Amendments to be broad, which in the end hurt us, instead of its intended purpose, to help us. The statement made in the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law” (pg. 417) which, applies explicitly to the national government, and can be related to the case of “Barron v. Baltimore (1833)” (pg. 417), which stated that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government and not the states. Because of this case, the Supreme Court didn’t enforce the Bill of Rights “until well into the twentieth century” (pg.417). Another court case that was interpreted was the case of “Adamson v. California” (pg.417). This case led to the “total incorporation” (pg.417) of the Bill of Rights for both the Federal and State governments. Because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, that we so desperately needed, we now have a government who we feel can protect our rights as American citizens. Even though they might not always get it right, they do the best they can with the powers that were allowed to them by the founding fathers all those years …show more content…
The problem was figuring out how to decide what was acceptable and what was considered diabolical. In the case of “Schenck v. United States” (pg.418) Schenck was “mailing leaflets” (pg.418) to people “opposing U.S. involvement in World War I.” (pg.418). He argued that his actions where protected by his freedom of speech, which they were, and later “in 1925” (pg.418) “the case of Gitlow v. New York” (pg.418) also argued this point. Gitlow was a protestor of Democracy and Capitalism and won his case of the defense of freedom of speech. Other cases such as: “Whitney v. California”, “Brandenburg v. Ohio”, “Texas v. Johnson”, and, “Tinker v. Des Moines District” (pg.418-419) all debated this same topic and either were granted their speech rights or were somehow denied on the grounds of what was best for the whole. For something to be in the best interest of the whole, everything needs to be equal in how it is interpreted. However, there are limits, and these limits are in control of the states, which can cause some hypocrisy within its limits. For example, Child pornography and cross burnings are considered obscene and are prohibited within individual states. “Obscenity, as a constitutional or legal issue, has always involved suppressing some expression…” (pg.420). Meaning, that everyone’s definition of “obscene” is different allowing the community to limit your
416). Patrick Henry seized this opportunity by using it as the “key reason” (pg.416) to convince more states not to ratify the constitution. After the Bill of Rights were established by James Madison, things began to fall apart in the story of America’s beginning. They created these Amendments to be broad, which in the end hurt us, instead of its intended purpose, to help us. The statement made in the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law” (pg. 417) which, applies explicitly to the national government, and can be related to the case of “Barron v. Baltimore (1833)” (pg. 417), which stated that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government and not the states. Because of this case, the Supreme Court didn’t enforce the Bill of Rights “until well into the twentieth century” (pg.417). Another court case that was interpreted was the case of “Adamson v. California” (pg.417). This case led to the “total incorporation” (pg.417) of the Bill of Rights for both the Federal and State governments. Because of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, that we so desperately needed, we now have a government who we feel can protect our rights as American citizens. Even though they might not always get it right, they do the best they can with the powers that were allowed to them by the founding fathers all those years …show more content…
The problem was figuring out how to decide what was acceptable and what was considered diabolical. In the case of “Schenck v. United States” (pg.418) Schenck was “mailing leaflets” (pg.418) to people “opposing U.S. involvement in World War I.” (pg.418). He argued that his actions where protected by his freedom of speech, which they were, and later “in 1925” (pg.418) “the case of Gitlow v. New York” (pg.418) also argued this point. Gitlow was a protestor of Democracy and Capitalism and won his case of the defense of freedom of speech. Other cases such as: “Whitney v. California”, “Brandenburg v. Ohio”, “Texas v. Johnson”, and, “Tinker v. Des Moines District” (pg.418-419) all debated this same topic and either were granted their speech rights or were somehow denied on the grounds of what was best for the whole. For something to be in the best interest of the whole, everything needs to be equal in how it is interpreted. However, there are limits, and these limits are in control of the states, which can cause some hypocrisy within its limits. For example, Child pornography and cross burnings are considered obscene and are prohibited within individual states. “Obscenity, as a constitutional or legal issue, has always involved suppressing some expression…” (pg.420). Meaning, that everyone’s definition of “obscene” is different allowing the community to limit your