Sentences with phrase «amendment rights the government»

The government can not question you if you have invoked your 5th Amendment rights The government must release you if you post bail which is set by a magistrate in some cases but can be posted without conferring with a...

Not exact matches

Biometrics might be cool and convenient, but the technology could potentially undermine your legal rights under the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from compelling a witness to testify against herself.

As a corporate entity, Facebook has every right to delete or censor whatever it wants, of course, since the First Amendment only applies to the actions of the government in restraining speech.

In a copy of the brief provided by the company, Apple argued that the government's request is «unprecedented» and violates the company's First Amendment rights.

WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.

Efforts to require a nationwide registry have also faced resistance over concerns about potential threats to Second Amendment rights — a central repository of data could eventually lead to firearms being confiscated by the government, critics have said.

The whole episode culminated in Renault's independent board members condemning the government's «destabilising» influence on the Nissan - Renault alliance, the signing of an agreement between the state and the company that would cap the state's voting rights on most resolutions, and an amendment to the master co-operation agreement with Nissan, in which Renault agreed not to use its shareholding to oppose the Nissan board.

If the federal and state governments come in and slap new regulations and oversight on these companies, it's their own fault for practicing elitist arrogance in an attempt to shape a specific narrative that damages the very fabric of a society where the first amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the rights of free expression and free speech.

Constitutional Amendment 1: «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»

The issue of protecting the basic rights of persons from hostile or indifferent state governments was constitutionally resolved almost one hundred and fifty years ago in the Fourteenth Amendment, purchased with the blood of hundreds of thousands of American lives in the awful crucible of the Civil War.

He finds these values as well in the handiwork of «insurrectionists» from Daniel Shays to John Brown to Timothy McVeigh, and in the arguments of neo-republican legal scholars such as Amar, Sanford Levinson and David Williams, who find a mandate for revolutionary resistance to oppressive government in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

But to defend their and your First Amendment rights you have to support all of right to be different from each other, a government that does not impede reglious opinion or set one as the «national religion».

Lets look at the 1st amendment: 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.

I thought the 1st amendment assured people (all people) the right to lobby their government?

In reality, the founders put the second amendment in the bill of rights not to ensure Americans could enjoy hunting or target practice, but as a protection against government tyranny.

They also state that «the CBP Summons is unlawful and unenforceable because it violates the First Amendment rights of both Twitter and its users by seeking to unmask the identity of one or more anonymous Twitter users voicing criticism of the government on matters of public concern.»

The amendment was intended to safeguard the right of individuals to exercise freedom of conscience in religious matters against encroachment by the federal government, and to ensure that such concerns would remain under the control of the several states.

In that case Justice Rehnquist wrote that Alabama has the right to enforce government - sponsored prayer in public schools, and even to establish a state - sponsored church if it wants to — which questions the premise (based on the Fourteenth Amendment) that constitutional prohibitions on infringement of rights extend to the states.

The first Amendment guarantees our right to exercise our religion (any religion) without interference from the government.

The fact that government can trample on our rights, be it our second amendment or religion is scary.

As soon as you go out into the public realm, and put yourself in situations where you are no longer interacting with individuals PURELY of your faith, then you are now open to the government enforcing those people's first amendment rights, and the rights of an individual absolutely outweigh the rights of a religious affiliated private organization.

Most Americans assume that the separation of church and state is a fundamental principle deeply rooted in American constitutionalism; that the First Amendment was intended to ensure that government does not involve itself with religion (and vice versa); and that contemporary debates over such vexing issues as school prayer, voucher programs, government funding of faith - based organizations, and the rights of religious minorities represent ongoing attempts to realize the separation intended by the Founders and like - minded early Americans.

The point, as it relates to this article is that the second amendment enumerates the rights of citizens to arm themselves against tyranny within their own government.

2nd amendment is to protect us from GOVERNMENT and protect the rest of amendments in the Bill of Rights!

In her home state of Texas, the government legislature actually passed a «safe cupcake amendment» (a.k.a. Lauren's Law) to protect the right of parents to bring in sweets on their kids» birthdays.

The onus is now on the government to ensure the 8th Amendment is finally removed from the Constitution as the key to protecting women's human rights in maternity care.»

In this case, the Irish Constitution overrules human rights legislation and a woman's right to where and how she gives birth is eroded significantly by this amendment — which, it is interesting to note, is the only amendment in our entire Bunreacht na hÉireann that is not a government amendment.

This is further supported by the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms) and Federalist Paper Number 46 (James Madison) explained that it was a sign of trust by the government that it let it's citizen keep arms and that the people need not fear the government because the people were armed.

The first amendment affirms the right of citizens to speak freely and to petition the government to redress grievances.

But even though the 5 - 4 majority ruling makes an intellectual end run around the language of the Second Amendment to get to their ruling, they very clearly state that society (government, convened to collectively protect us from what we can't protect ourselves from as individuals) has the right to, and legitimate interest in controlling gun ownership, in several specific ways.

In a 5 to 4 decision those justices ruled that the Second Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self - defense, despite the amendment's opening language - «A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,» - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds baAmendment gives Americans the right to own guns for personal self - defense, despite the amendment's opening language - «A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,» - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds baamendment's opening language - «A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,» - which pretty clearly says that gun ownership was specifically preserved by the founding fathers in the interest of the common defense against a tyrannical government (remember, this was the issue on their minds back then).

In an extraordinary move, Conservative members of the government were told to abstain on an amendment by Dominic Raab attempting to remove the right of foreign criminals facing deportation to make an appeal based on their right to a family life.

If the government could single out individuals for removal of gun rights by putting them on watchlists without any sort of due process, the entire point of the second amendment is defeated.

These states assert that they «have a vital interest in protecting the First Amendment rights of public employees, and in the fiscal health of state and local governments.»

The Romanian Parliament, also dominated by USL, is currently debating the modification of the 2003 Mining Law and considering amendments which would facilitate important erosion of citizens» rights, particularly by allowing foreign companies to expropriate the lands and houses of Romanian citizens on behalf of the Romanian government.

«When our government criminalizes the very free speech that the First Amendment was written to protect, sends people to prison for simply exercising their constitutional rights, and wields its power like a weapon against political enemies, we are all in trouble.»

The 10th Amendment says that the states and the people retain the rights / powers that are not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.

In practice, the privileges of the Official Opposition go far further, for example through frontbenchers» established right to speak at the start and end of most debates, and to intervene during oral question times (including Prime Minister's Questions), plus an expectation that the Speaker will select important opposition amendments for debate at report stage of government bills.

It's a blatant violation of the First Amendment — no government body has the right to regulate contacts with the press.

Conservatives are often the ones waving around their copies of the 10th Amendment — which reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states — and lambasting the chipping away of states» rights.

the first amendment was establish against the government's infringing on the citizen's rights to speech.

If all people are created equal by virtue of inalienable rights (those rights which don't come from government - see 9th Amendment and «inalienable rights»), then any laws must acknowledge the self - ownership of all individuals otherwise they are illegitimate (we know that governments are bad about this since they make arbitrary laws which harm people which violated no one else's rights but merely violated a law - like seat belt laws).

Not being any government entities, the violent protesters couldn't have possibly infringed on anyone's first amendment rights.

The government stepped in amid fears that an amendment designed to give straight couples the right to civil partnerships, planned by Tim Loughton, the former children's minister, and two other Tory MPs, could disrupt the equal marriage bill, which is opposed by many Conservatives.

I want to once again remind readers that self - defense — including defense against tyrannical government — is more than a right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to our Constitution; it is a duty assigned us in Nature by our Creator.

Christine Williams, from Napanoch, is worried that the government is trying to take away the people's Second Amendment rights.

In the United States, the federal Bill of Rights and the federal 14th Amendment recognize constitutionally protected Due Process rights which, if enforced, are a failsafe in favor of the individual and his «life, liberty, or property» (see 5th amendment) as against the rights of State and Federal governRights and the federal 14th Amendment recognize constitutionally protected Due Process rights which, if enforced, are a failsafe in favor of the individual and his «life, liberty, or property» (see 5th amendment) as against the rights of State and Federal govAmendment recognize constitutionally protected Due Process rights which, if enforced, are a failsafe in favor of the individual and his «life, liberty, or property» (see 5th amendment) as against the rights of State and Federal governrights which, if enforced, are a failsafe in favor of the individual and his «life, liberty, or property» (see 5th amendment) as against the rights of State and Federal govamendment) as against the rights of State and Federal governrights of State and Federal governments.

In the case of the first amendment it prohibits (among other things) the government from abridging a persons inalienable right to speak freely and express themselves through written or spoken word.

Mr Speaker, as I set out on Monday we will also table a Government amendment to the Sanctions Bill to strengthen our powers to impose sanctions in response to the violation of human rights.

Fears are growing across the labour movement that unless the Government backs a series of key amendments to the Employment Bill as it enters its key Commons» stages on Tuesday (November 4th) trade unions will become highly vulnerable to infiltration from the BNP and the far right.