Running Head: SHORT TITLE

Full Version of Your Papers Title

Name
College

SHORT TITLE

The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are collectively named as the Bill of
Rights. Proposed to mollify the apprehensions of Anti-Federalists who had contradicted
Constitutional ratifications, these amendments ensure various individual freedoms, confine the
administration's authority in legal and other procedures, and hold a few powers to the general
public and the states.
The Bill counts freedoms not expressly demonstrated in the fundamental body of the
Constitution, for example, freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, free assembly, and a free
press; the privilege to keep and carry weapons; security in belongings, freedom from warrants
issued without reasonable justification and freedom from irrational inquiry and seizure;
assurance of a fast, open trial with an unbiased jury; and prohibition of twofold peril. Moreover,
the Bill reserves for the individuals any rights not particularly discussed in the Constitution and
reserves all authorities not allowed to the central government to the States or the individuals.
I believe that first and ninth amendments are the most important out of the first ten
amendments. The former entails the very basic rights of the citizens. The latter comprehends that
the rights of individuals go beyond the boundaries of what are mentioned in the constitution.
Both of these amendments will be discussed and analyzed in detail along with their judicial
interpretation in the recent history.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO US CONSTITUTION
First Amendment constitutes the Bill of Rights and was approved on 15th December 1791.
The text of the first amendment is as follows;

SHORT TITLE

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. (Government
Archive)
The First Amendment to the US Constitution restricts the making of any law regarding a
foundation of religion, blocking the free practice of religion, condensing the right to speak freely,
encroaching on the freedom of the press, meddling with the freedom to assemble or precluding
the petitioning for an administrative redress or governmental review of grievances. This is a very
important amendment because it covers the basic human rights of the individuals. Its judicial
interpretations have formed the basis for multiple court decisions in the United States. A detailed
description with some of the important cases that further clarified these amendments are
discussed below which show how the law enforcement agencies use this amendment.
Free Exercise of Religion:
Freedom of religion means flexibility to hold a supposition or conviction, but not to
make a move disregarding social obligations or subversive in great order, In Reynolds v. US,
the Supreme Court found that while laws can't meddle with religious conviction and sentiments,
laws can be made to control a few religious practices. In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the
Court held that the Fourteen Amendment's Due Process Clause connected the Free Exercise
Clause to the states. While the privilege to have religious convictions is supreme and absolute,
the opportunity to follow up on such convictions is not outright and absolute.
Freedom of speech:

SHORT TITLE

Most people put stock in the privilege to free discourse, i.e. Right to free speech,
however, face off regarding whether it ought to cover flag desecration, obscenity, tobacco
promotions, scorn discourse, memoirs of convicted criminals, defamation and other such
activities. Numerous would consent to constraining a few types of free expression, as found in
the First Amendment Center's State of the First Amendment overview reports.
Freedom of the press:
The Free Press Clause secures the privilege of people to convey what needs to be through
the production and dissemination of data, thoughts and assessments without impedance,
requirement or indictment by the government. This privilege was portrayed in Branzburg v.
Hayes as a central individual right that is not limited to daily papers and periodicals. In Lovell
v. City of Griffin (1938), Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes characterized press as every
kind of distribution which manages a vehicle of data and opinion. This privilege has been
reached out to media including daily papers, plays, motion pictures, books, and computer games.
Petition and assembly:
The Petition Clause secures the privilege to petition the legislature for a review of
grievances. This incorporates the privilege to speak with government authorities, campaigning
government authorities and requesting of the courts by recording claims within lawful premises.
Freedom of association:
Although the First Amendment does not explicitly mention freedom of association, the
Supreme Court ruled that this freedom was protected by the Amendment and that privacy of
membership was an essential part of this freedom.

SHORT TITLE

The aforementioned details explain the different components of the First Amendment and
few cases of the past are mentioned to give a fair view of how the judiciary these components.
This amendment holds significant importance today as these rights are exercised throughout the
country. Media is free. Different groups have emerged across the country and allowed to express
their views and freedom of association is exercised.
NINTH AMENDMENT TO US CONSTITUTION
The Ninth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States addresses rights, held by
the individuals that are not particularly mentioned in the Constitution. The text of the Ninth
Amendment is as follows;
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed
to deny or disparage others retained by the people. (Government Archive)
The Ninth Amendment clears up that the particular individual rights expressed in the
Constitution, especially in the Bill of Rights, do not constitute an unequivocal and thorough
listing of every individual right controlled by the individuals, and can't be utilized by the central
government to build its forces in ranges not expressed. This right laid the foundation upon which
several decisions were built: Griswold v. Connecticut, which overturned a law criminalizing the
utilization of contraceptives; Roe v. Wade, which toppled a law making it a wrongdoing to help a
lady to get an abortion; and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which negated a law that obliged
spousal mindfulness before getting an abortion (Black, 1999).
Judicial Interpretation:

SHORT TITLE

The Ninth Amendment has for the most part been viewed by the courts as discrediting
any expansion and enhancement of governmental power on account of the count of rights in the
Constitution, yet the Amendment has not been viewed as further constraining legislative force.
The Supreme Court held that the Bill of Rights was enforceable by the electoral courts just
against the government, and not against the states. Accordingly, the Ninth Amendment initially
applied just to the central government, which is an administration of listed powers.
Scholarly Interpretation:
Laurence Tribe shares the perspective that this amendment does not present substantive
rights: It is a typical mistake, yet a lapse nonetheless. This amendment is not a wellspring of
rights as is indicated; it is basically a tenet about how to peruse the Constitution. Bernard Bailyn
(2000) gave a discourse at on the Ninth Amendment. He explained that the Ninth Amendment
alludes to numerous rights, controlled by the individuals dormant rights, still to be evoked
and instituted into law.... a store of other, numerous rights that the individuals hold, which may
be established into law.
On the basis of the aforementioned arguments, it can be deduced that this amendment
holds significant importance and impact on the individuals. It allows the federal government to
exercise its powers within a specific domain granting rights to the individuals so they can live
their life freely.

SHORT TITLE

7
References

Bernard, B. (2000). Remarks at White House Millennium Evening.

Black, C. (1999). A new birth of freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (Justia US Supreme Court Center 1940).
Government Archive. Bill of Rights Transcript. Archives.gov. Retrieved May 15, 2010.
Lovell v. City of Griffin. (1938). 303 U.S. 444.