Constitutional Anthology

Constitutional Anthology. Customer’s forenote: If possible, please employ a politically left-leaning writer for this project, as the viewpoints I am aiming for are left-leaning. If it is written with left-leaning viewpoints in mind, I will tip upwards of 30 to 40%.

Project Instructions: “You will create a portfolio of work that demonstrates a critical understanding of some of the Amendments to the United States Constitution. This is an attempt to bring to life the Constitution through a compilation of provocative thoughts, images, and situations, supported by your writing. You will choose 3 separate amendments to represent in a variety of categories. You must choose a Supreme Court case as a category. The following Supreme Court Cases can NOT be used: Gideon v. Wainwright, Miranda v. Arizona, New Jersey v. TLO, U.S. v. Reynolds, Mapp v. Ohio, Tinker v. Des Moines, Morse v. Fredrick, Bethel v. Fraser, Furman v. Georgia, Escobedo v. Illinois, Brown v. Board of Education and Marbury v. Madison. (In addition you may not use any of the examples given in class for any category.) Any amendments that apply – do not duplicate Constitutional rights and amendments. Try to use a range of amendments to show your overall understanding of your liberties. You may only use the 1st Amendment one time. Example if you use freedom of speech you may not use the other portions of the amendment for the remainder of the anthology.

Customer’s note: Please complete this project with amendments 4, 6, and 8.

Further Instructions: “Choose 2 of the following categories in addition to one Supreme Court case – They do not need to appear in this order in your anthology but must be identified in your table of contents.

Supreme Court Case

Choose Two (2):
Poem/song
Picture/Video – (working link to a video would be acceptable)
Personal situation
Current event
Social change
Debate an amendment (pick a side and advocate it)
Importance/significance of an amendment.
For each category you must find a way to connect with an amendment of your choice and a consistent theme. All three aspects (category/theme/amendment) need to be clearly demonstrated throughout the portfolio.
Theme – something that ties all the categories and amendments together.”

Customer’s note: You may select any supreme court case and 2 categories, but the theme of the project will be justice and its failures throughout the United States’ judicial history.

Below is a full example of a completed Constitutional Anthology with a grade better than a C-.

Introduction
Clash

As we look throughout our history there are many times when clashes are evident. According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “clash is a hostile encounter, a sharp conflict” (Merriam-Webster). We begin our own history as a nation during a time of clash between the new United States and the United Kingdom. Fighting the revolutionary war so that we could determine our own form of government. We have, currently, a political clash between our elected leadership. The Congress and the President consistently clash with each other. Political Parties clash over ideology and even candidates for President clash over ways to solve the problems that plague our nation. Many examples of clash in politics exist around political ideology.
In this project, clash will be demonstrated through a variety of categories and amendments. It begins with a picture, which may appear offensive to many, but demonstrates the 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech and clash. The very idea of burning a flag is offensive to many, but a protected aspect of symbolic speech. Next the Supreme Court Case, Miranda v. Arizona, will demonstrate the 5th Amendment and clash. As the government utilizes police to protect and defend the citizens sometimes that power clashes with Constitutional Rights of citizens as guaranteed in the Constitution. Finally, clash will be evident in the debate of the value and importance of the 13th Amendment. The end of slavery came about after the most physical and psychological clash on our soil, the Civil War. This concerted efforts by the South to keep slavery and the North objection to the succession of the South over the issue needed a clear end. The nation needed to be united in one clear policy that slavery is in no way acceptable and an abhorrent practice. Still today we have issues of slavery, although not condoned by government. We are still working to make sure that all people are free and retain their “certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” (McGraw-Hill, pg. 1018-1022)
After looking at various categories and amendments there will be a clear understanding of the importance of protecting the rights of the people. Knowing the constitutional rights afforded in the amendments allows us to stand up for those rights when we clash with the government or each other. Even though clash has a negative connotation, if it wasn’t for the clash we face as citizens of this country we would not truly know or respect the freedoms we have. It is the court cases, the discussions and the education of citizens that not only help us to understand our rights but recognize that sometimes clashing with each other gives a clear direction on what our society holds dear in protecting the freedoms that came from the revolutionary clash with the United Kingdom.

The picture on the preceding page was the cover photo for an article written by Burt Neuborne called the “Cycles of Censorship” (Neuborne). In this photo the individual is burning the U.S. flag. This is a protected 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech. Clash of viewpoints is not new to our country. In this picture this person’s actions clash with many Americans who believe that people fought and died for the flag and that the flag should not be used to express disgruntled viewpoints of the U.S. government. Additionally, this person has a clash with the U.S. government to such extremes that they feel it necessary to go to a drastic display at this particular protest. Finally the clash of political ideas is the most protected form of free speech.
Looking at the situation from those who would support a person’s right to burn a flag as a form of protest they would argue that the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue. In the case Texas v. Johnson, 1989 the court ruled that flag burning was a protected form of political speech. Justice Brennan wrote in the ruling that “taking offense at the political action is not sufficient reason to suppress speech or expression.” (Magruder’s American Government). In addition Gregory Johnson’s attorney asked the court to use the ruling in Edwards v. South Carolina where the court had upheld unpopular speech. (Magruder’s American Government). This is a protection of speech even if it clashes with other people’s belief that it is offensive. There have been attempts to limit flag burning. According to the Constitution Center after the Texas v. Johnson decision Congress responded by “passing a national anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989” (Constitution Center). The Supreme Court overturned the law as unconstitutional. The Congress has tried to propose an amendment to the Constitution that would limit flag burning on many occasions but has not been able to get the required 2/3rds votes to formally propose. So even in the discussion on flag burning there is clash within Congress. Many members would like to see a ban on flag burning yet not enough to meet the threshold of amendment proposal so clashing with those who do not want to propose said amendment.
Many people look to the flag as inspiration. A way to build national unity and pride. In fact schools begin teaching not only the pledge of allegiance but also the meaning behind the stars and stripes. The flag has been used as a sign of respect. When an individual has given the greatest sacrifice to the nation they are honored with a flag draped coffin. The family is given this folded flag as a way to show respect for that sacrifice. When looking at whether to support the actions of the individual in the picture some would say that clashes with those families who gave up more than can be articulated so that person could speak in such a manner. Sometimes this creates greater clash in the community where people are divided on this issue. According to a 2006 Gallup Poll Americans are divided on the issue. 56% favored a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning when the question was asked in a general manner but when given specifics the support fell to 40%. (Gallup, 2014). Even in the polling data the clash in the society over the issue is evident. Emotion may have an effect on some people’s viewpoint on the issue. If someone has a family member who is deployed they may feel sensitive to the idea of someone else desecrating a flag. On the other hand an individual who feels they have not been heard may feel the need to act in such an extreme fashion as depicted in the picture to let the society know they have been wronged by their government in some manner. Ultimately the clash between the two opposing views exists.
Political speech is the most protected type of speech. People have many ways to indicate their concerns with the government. The need to burn a flag may not be the most effective way to have their voices heard. The viewpoint of the individual about their concerns within government is probably lost when the action does offend many people who might have been willing to hear what is being protested. Some people may look at that type of speech and dismiss the person outright. Creating a greater clash among the society. Ultimately the issue is complex. On a personal note looking at the fifty stars and the thirteen red and white stripes I do have to say I love my flags. For me I cannot imagine wanting to express my concerns by burning a flag. This may clash with another person’s view point.

Supreme Court Case
Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda clashed with the Arizona Police. He was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault in Phoenix, Arizona. (Magruder’s American Government) The victim picked him out of a line up to identify him. When Miranda was questioned he was not aware that he had a right to remain silent as dictated by the 5th Amendment. This is a fundamental protection that all people have to protect them when there are legal clashes with the government. Upon interrogation Miranda did confess to the criminal act. He further signed something that stated he knew what he was doing even though he had not spoken with an attorney. Miranda was not given adequate access to a lawyer and when his case finally made it to trial there would be a clash between the court and Miranda’s rights as a defendant. Ernesto Miranda was convicted. His new legal counsel felt that there had been a violation of his rights and filed a writ of certiorari to ask the court to review the actions of the lower court. Specifically, did the lower court allow information to be used, the confession, when the defendant did not understand his rights? The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Miranda’s lawyers argued that Miranda had been denied his 5th and 6th amendment rights. They cited that Miranda was unable to understand that the confession would be used against him. The right to remain silent is important because it means the government cannot force you to testify against yourself. The government has to have the evidence without your help. This argument clashed with the Arizona government argument that Miranda was not a stranger to police proceedings and had willingly confessed. Therefore the government had acted legitimately to use the confession against Miranda. (Ibid)
The Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the conviction and that created a new policy. Prior to the Miranda case the Supreme Court had created a policy that defendants who could not afford an attorney would be provided one. In this ruling the Court felt that it was necessary to ensure an understanding of your rights both in regards to the 5th amendment right to remain silent but also the 6th amendment right to an attorney. This policy would be that from now on if being detained and interrogated the police would be required to inform people of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. This ruling is an example of judicial activism because the court instituted a new policy that is in effect today. The Miranda Warnings are the following:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” (MirandaWarning.org)
The warnings given by the police are there to protect an individual from extensive clash with the government. Without Miranda asking the court to review his case there may be clashes today with other individuals who are not aware of their rights in criminal proceedings. The criminal cases of Gideon v. Wainwright, Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona change the way that people are protected in criminal proceedings. These three cases allowed for the action of having an attorney, the exclusion of evidence obtained improperly and the fact that an individual who is detained and being interrogated has the rights in the constitution explained to them. This will hopefully limit the courtroom clash about what is allowed. People will continue to make choices that put them in the situation of criminal proceedings but will at least know their constitutional protections moving forward in the process.

Debate an Amendment
13th Amendment – Abolish Slavery
Slavery is hard thing to imagine. We can try to understand what people went through but we will never fully understand the dehumanizing, vial treatment suffered at the hands of other people. We enjoy so many freedoms as American citizens it is unfathomable what it must have been like for the almost four million individuals enslaved, according to the data in the 1860’s census. (1860 Census, U.S. Census). According to the BBC Ethics Guide, “Slavery can be broadly described as the ownership, buying and selling of human beings for the purpose of forced and unpaid labor.” (BBC Broadcasting). The largest clash on U.S. soil was fought over whether the U.S. would allow slave holding states to secede from the Union over the desire of those southern states to keep slavery as a legal part of their governments. In order to completely eradicate the abhorrent practice of slavery it was an absolute necessity to have a clear and united statement in our Constitution. The 13th Amendment was vital for the United States to send a clear message that slavery is wrong, unify the country’s practice of not allowing slaves anywhere in the U.S. or its territories and to begin to have a legal force to protect the people who were freed under the emancipation proclamation. (History Channel)
Slavery in practice is a clash between people. One group of people having the audacity to think they can own other people clashes with our very sense of justice and freedoms. Slavery is wrong. According to the BBC Ethics Guide is that the people who own slaves only do so to benefit the slave owner, not the slave. They further go on to express that “slavery exploits and degrades human beings” and “violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (BBC Broadcasting). The whole idea of one person owning another is unconscionable from a society that expresses the ideas like those in the Declaration of Independence. It is hypocritical for the founding fathers, many who owned slaves, to advocate for their freedom from tyranny only to impose tyranny on a race of people. Thomas Jefferson had wanted to free his own slaves upon his death but was unable to due to his financial situation. Like many people of that day Jefferson and others relied on the work of their slaves to improve the financial status of the owner.
Ending slavery in an Amendment would unify a common practice across the United States. No longer would there be free and slave states admitted to the union. All states and U.S. Territories would be free. This process would allow for a fair footing economically. Many northern states did not have slaves and were able to demonstrate that you could be financially capable of growing the gross domestic product without the use of free labor. The advantages of capitalism will eventually lead to an equalizer that when people compete for business both consumer, producer and laborer will profit. Laborers who are paid will be able to purchase goods produced and thereby help to grow the profits of producers. The circular flow of economic activity is enhanced without a slave population. Having a common practice across all states and territories also leaves no question as to the moral guiding values of a nation. As stated slaver is wrong and having a common voice to say it will not be allowed will further impress upon all peoples that we adhere to the ideals set in our founding documents.
Finally ending slavery with the 13th Amendment would give a legal force to the protecting those individuals who were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. The Republican Party of 1860 was against slavery. It was precisely the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President elected that the South moved to secede from the Union. Many in the party had hoped that the abolition of slavery would come through a democratic process. In fact according to Monticello.org, Thomas Jefferson felt that was the best way to end slavery. (https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/) Having a policy that was adopted as part of the Constitution there would be no vague interpretations of what was allowed and what was not. It would be very clear. Slavery was over, everywhere in the U.S.
The fact that slavery is wrong, that ending slavery would have a unifying policy across the nation and give legal standing for newly freed slaves demonstrates the importance of the 13th Amendment. To avoid clashes with others there is no ambiguity about the ideas of slavery. Still today, although not condoned by government, we struggle to make sure all people are free of slavery. We have prosecutions of people who still sell and
Page 10
exploit others. In our own town we have a charity to help fight sex trafficking. The more that people recognize and stand up for the rights of others the more we can all try to achieve those words expressed in our Declarations that ‘All men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ (Declaration of Independence) The picture on the preceding page was the cover photo for an article written by Burt Neuborne called the “Cycles of Censorship” (Neuborne). In this photo the individual is burning the U.S. flag. This is a protected 1st Amendment Freedom of Speech. Clash of viewpoints is not new to our country. In this picture this person’s actions clash with many Americans who believe that people fought and died for the flag and that the flag should not be used to express disgruntled viewpoints of the U.S. government. Additionally, this person has a clash with the U.S. government to such extremes that they feel it necessary to go to a drastic display at this particular protest. Finally the clash of political ideas is the most protected form of free speech.
Looking at the situation from those who would support a person’s right to burn a flag as a form of protest they would argue that the Supreme Court has already weighed in on the issue. In the case Texas v. Johnson, 1989 the court ruled that flag burning was a protected form of political speech. Justice Brennan wrote in the ruling that “taking offense at the political action is not sufficient reason to suppress speech or expression.” (Magruder’s American Government). In addition Gregory Johnson’s attorney asked the court to use the ruling in Edwards v. South Carolina where the court had upheld unpopular speech. (Magruder’s American Government). This is a protection of speech even if it clashes with other people’s belief that it is offensive. There have been attempts to limit flag burning. According to the Constitution Center after the Texas v. Johnson decision Congress responded by “passing a national anti-flag burning law called the Flag Protection Act of 1989” (Constitution Center). The Supreme Court overturned the law as unconstitutional. The Congress has tried to propose an amendment to the Constitution that would limit flag burning on many occasions but has not been able to get the required 2/3rds votes to formally propose. So even in the discussion on flag burning there is clash within Congress. Many members would like to see a ban on flag burning yet not enough to meet the threshold of amendment proposal so clashing with those w
Many people look to the flag as inspiration. A way to build national unity and pride. In fact schools begin teaching not only the pledge of allegiance but also the meaning behind the stars and stripes. The flag has been used as a sign of respect. When an individual has given the greatest sacrifice to the nation they are honored
with a flag draped coffin. The family is given this folded flag as a way to show respect for that sacrifice. When looking at whether to support the actions of the individual in the picture some would say that clashes with those families who gave up more than can be articulated so that person could speak in such a manner. Sometimes this creates greater clash in the community where people are divided on this issue. According to a 2006 Gallup Poll Americans are divided on the issue. 56% favored a Constitutional Amendment banning flag burning when the question was asked in a general manner but when given specifics the support fell to 40%. (Gallup, 2014). Even in the polling data the clash in the society over the issue is evident. Emotion may have an effect on some people’s viewpoint on the issue. If someone has a family member who is deployed they may feel sensitive to the idea of someone else desecrating a flag. On the other hand an individual who feels they have not been heard may feel the need to act in such an extreme fashion as depicted in the picture to let the society know they have been wronged by their government in some manner. Ultimately the clash between the two opposing views exists.
Political speech is the most protected type of speech. People have many ways to indicate their concerns with the government. The need to burn a flag may not be the most effective way to have their voices heard. The viewpoint of the individual about their concerns within government is probably lost when the action does offend many people who might have been willing to hear what is being protested. Some people may look at that type of speech and dismiss the person outright. Creating a greater clash among the society. Ultimately the issue is complex. On a personal note looking at the fifty stars and the thirteen red and white stripes I do have to say I love my flags. For me I cannot imagine wanting to express my concerns by burning a flag. This may clash with another person’s view point.

Supreme Court Case
Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda clashed with the Arizona Police. He was arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault in Phoenix, Arizona. (Magruder’s American Government) The victim picked him out of a line up to identify him. When Miranda was questioned he was not aware that he had a right to remain silent as dictated by the 5th Amendment. This is a fundamental protection that all people have to protect them when there are legal clashes with the government. Upon interrogation Miranda did confess to the criminal act. He further signed something that stated he knew what he was doing even though he had not spoken with an attorney. Miranda was not given adequate access to a lawyer and when his case finally made it to trial there would be a clash between the court and Miranda’s rights as a defendant. Ernesto Miranda was convicted. His new legal counsel felt that there had been a violation of his rights and filed a writ of certiorari to ask the court to review the actions of the lower court. Specifically, did the lower court allow information to be used, the confession, when the defendant did not understand his rights? The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Miranda’s lawyers argued that Miranda had been denied his 5th and 6th amendment rights. They cited that Miranda was unable to understand that the confession would be used against him. The right to remain silent is important because it means the government cannot force you to testify against yourself. The government has to have the evidence without your help. This argument clashed with the Arizona government argument that Miranda was not a stranger to police proceedings and had willingly confessed. Therefore the government had acted legitimately to use the confession against Miranda. (Ibid)
The Supreme Court issued a ruling that overturned the conviction and that created a new policy. Prior to the Miranda case the Supreme Court had created a policy that defendants who could not afford an attorney would be provided one. In this ruling the Court felt that it was necessary to ensure an understanding of your rights both in regards to the 5th amendment right to remain silent but also the 6th amendment right to an attorney. This policy would be that from now on if being detained and interrogated the police would be required to inform people of their 5th and 6th Amendment rights. This ruling is an example of judicial activism because the court instituted a new policy that is in effect today. The Miranda Warnings are the following:
“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?” (MirandaWarning.org)
The warnings given by the police are there to protect an individual from extensive clash with the government. Without Miranda asking the court to review his case there may be clashes today with other individuals who are not aware of their rights in criminal proceedings. The criminal cases of Gideon v. Wainwright, Escobedo v. Illinois and Miranda v. Arizona change the way that people are protected in criminal proceedings. These three cases allowed for the action of having an attorney, the exclusion of evidence obtained improperly and the fact that an individual who is detained and being interrogated has the rights in the constitution explained to them. This will hopefully limit the courtroom clash about what is allowed. People will continue to make choices that put them in the situation of criminal proceedings but will at least know their constitutional protections moving forward in the process.

Debate an Amendment
13th Amendment – Abolish Slavery
Slavery is hard thing to imagine. We can try to understand what people went through but we will never fully understand the dehumanizing, vial treatment suffered at the hands of other people. We enjoy so many freedoms as American citizens it is unfathomable what it must have been like for the almost four million individuals enslaved, according to the data in the 1860’s census. (1860 Census, U.S. Census). According to the BBC Ethics Guide, “Slavery can be broadly described as the ownership, buying and selling of human beings for the purpose of forced and unpaid labor.” (BBC Broadcasting). The largest clash on U.S. soil was fought over whether the U.S. would allow slave holding states to secede from the Union over the desire of those southern states to keep slavery as a legal part of their governments. In order to completely eradicate the abhorrent practice of slavery it was an absolute necessity to have a clear and united statement in our Constitution. The 13th Amendment was vital for the United States to send a clear message that slavery is wrong, unify the country’s practice of not allowing slaves anywhere in the U.S. or its territories and to begin to have a legal force to protect the people who were freed under the emancipation proclamation. (History Channel)
Slavery in practice is a clash between people. One group of people having the audacity to think they can own other people clashes with our very sense of justice and freedoms. Slavery is wrong. According to the BBC Ethics Guide is that the people who own slaves only do so to benefit the slave owner, not the slave. They further go on to express that “slavery exploits and degrades human beings” and “violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (BBC Broadcasting). The whole idea of one person owning another is unconscionable from a society that expresses the ideas like those in the Declaration of Independence. It is hypocritical for the founding fathers, many who owned slaves, to advocate for their freedom from tyranny only to impose tyranny on a race of people. Thomas Jefferson had wanted to free his own slaves upon his death but was unable to due to his financial situation. Like many people of that day Jefferson and others relied on the work of their slaves to improve the financial status of the owner.
Ending slavery in an Amendment would unify a common practice across the United States. No longer would there be free and slave states admitted to the union. All states and U.S. Territories would be free. This process would allow for a fair footing economically. Many northern states did not have slaves and were able to demonstrate that you could be financially capable of growing the gross domestic product without the use of free labor. The advantages of capitalism will eventually lead to an equalizer that when people compete for business both consumer, producer and laborer will profit. Laborers who are paid will be able to purchase goods produced and thereby help to grow the profits of producers. The circular flow of economic activity is enhanced without a slave population. Having a common practice across all states and territories also leaves no question as to the moral guiding values of a nation. As stated slaver is wrong and having a common voice to say it will not be allowed will further impress upon all peoples that we adhere to the ideals set in our founding documents.
Finally ending slavery with the 13th Amendment would give a legal force to the protecting those individuals who were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation. The Republican Party of 1860 was against slavery. It was precisely the fact that Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican President elected that the South moved to secede from the Union. Many in the party had hoped that the abolition of slavery would come through a democratic process. In fact according to Monticello.org, Thomas Jefferson felt that was the best way to end slavery. (https://www.monticello.org/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-slavery/jefferson-s-attitudes-toward-slavery/) Having a policy that was adopted as part of the Constitution there would be no vague interpretations of what was allowed and what was not. It would be very clear. Slavery was over, everywhere in the U.S.
The fact that slavery is wrong, that ending slavery would have a unifying policy across the nation and give legal standing for newly freed slaves demonstrates the importance of the 13th Amendment. To avoid clashes with others there is no ambiguity about the ideas of slavery. Still today, although not condoned by government, we struggle to make sure all people are free of slavery. We have prosecutions of people who still sell and exploit others. In our own town we have a charity to help fight sex trafficking. The more that people recognize and stand up for the rights of others the more we can all try to achieve those words expressed in our Declarations that ‘All men are created equal, they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ (Declaration of Independence)

Constitutional Anthology

This question has been answered by our writers. You can buy the answer below or order your 0% plagiarized answer