The Living Constitution Theory

1040 Words 4 Pages
The Supreme Court has a unique purpose within the United States government. The United States Supreme Court has the ability to guide the actions of the President of the United States and Congress. The Supreme Court’s role is to ensure that the President or Congress do not make decisions that can violate any articles of the Constitution. “It can tell a President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can tell Congress that a law, it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. It can also tell the government of a state that one of its laws breaks a rule in the Constitution” [1]. The final approving authority “involving the laws of Congress” consists of the Supreme Court of the United States and …show more content…
Without manipulating the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution, which will not change words, intent or meaning. The interpretation allows society as a whole and the Constitution of the United Stated to adapt to modern day, without taking away from what our four fathers intended the Constitution to be, resemble and beliefs. Our four fathers, developed not only a document, but a way of life, liberties and justice for everyone. The language as it is written on the Constitution appears to be foreign to the generation of today. The meaning, within that language many hold as words of courage, honor and …show more content…
The First Amendment, was in totality involved in the case of Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007). The Constitution, states that “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.” [4]
Although, I personally do not condone unprofessional behavior during a public event, the people are protected under the First Amendment of the United State Constitution. I believe such actions as displayed my Fredrick, discredits the educational system, the academic professionals and the students themselves. I agree that the First Amendment Freedom of Speech Clause is very valuable, but there should be established limitations. Why should innocent bystanders be subjected to foul language, advocacy of drug use or acts that are not professional in nature?

In considering that a dissent would disagree, where the majority rules, I believe I to would disagree. There is no reason for public display of such. Although, I do not advocate for the use of illegal drug, I must say that drug use, just like sexual intercourse is a private matter and the American people should not be subjected to such actions, just because rights are

Related Documents