Constitutional Convention Essay
Constitutional convention feels that a bill of rights is unneeded. Guarantee of Habeas Corpus is the legal action which requires people to be brought before a judge or into court under arrest. Constitutional convention feels that way because the Bill of Rights must be charged for a crime, no ex post facto laws that punish crimes, get a jury trial for all crimes, no punishment for treason for anyone but the accused with two witnesses. Overall, the constitutional convention opinions on Bill of Rights are not similar to citizens, and the citizens wanted better because of Declaration of Independence freshen the minds of citizens, Great Britain’s actions, cut off trades from the world, and impose taxes. They stated that a bill of rights was needed,
…show more content…
In 1833, first Supreme Court ruling, Barron vs. Baltimore found that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. In 1868, the 14th Amendment, equal protection of law, was passed by states and Congress. The Bill of Rights did applied for the states for few decades, then the decision in Palko vs. Connecticut decided that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states anymore. It indicates that the rights much be applied one by one after judicial review. In my opinion, I do agree with its plan. The Bill of Rights is not perfect, or no such thing is “perfect”. The rights applied after judicial review may be more effective. I picked the first amendment from the Bill of Rights, which protect the basic rights of human, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to assembly, and right to petition. Religion is a unified system of simple beliefs moral community. Under the freedom of religion, you are allowed to believe your religion, but you can’t do anything which would affect the public health and safety. Church business is separated from the government business, and the government cannot help one church over another. Freedom of speech allows you to say almost everything you want unless it is libel, slander, drug use, and against beliefs. I agree with the restrictions because the restrictions protect our other freedoms. Many of the rights can be against others, which is why the restrictions are there for specific rights to protect other
In 1833, first Supreme Court ruling, Barron vs. Baltimore found that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government. In 1868, the 14th Amendment, equal protection of law, was passed by states and Congress. The Bill of Rights did applied for the states for few decades, then the decision in Palko vs. Connecticut decided that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states anymore. It indicates that the rights much be applied one by one after judicial review. In my opinion, I do agree with its plan. The Bill of Rights is not perfect, or no such thing is “perfect”. The rights applied after judicial review may be more effective. I picked the first amendment from the Bill of Rights, which protect the basic rights of human, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to assembly, and right to petition. Religion is a unified system of simple beliefs moral community. Under the freedom of religion, you are allowed to believe your religion, but you can’t do anything which would affect the public health and safety. Church business is separated from the government business, and the government cannot help one church over another. Freedom of speech allows you to say almost everything you want unless it is libel, slander, drug use, and against beliefs. I agree with the restrictions because the restrictions protect our other freedoms. Many of the rights can be against others, which is why the restrictions are there for specific rights to protect other