Creative Project
How did and do we contradict the Constitution?
The constitution is a document containing fundamental principles for the United States of America. It is a living document, meaning that it can be modified to fit with the time and day of America. Although, it gives the citizens America the rights that they should endure, we did and often contradict it. In the past, the Johnson v. McIntosh case and verdict contradicted with the constitution because Johnson was not allowed to buy land from the Indians, even though in the Constitution it said that we should do commerce with the Indians. In the present, The Holt v. Hobbs case contradicted with the constitution because a prisoner, Gregory Holt was not allowed to grow a beard for religious purposes.
Johnson v. McIntosh case was that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans. This did not allow people to do commerce with the Native Americans. Johnson wanted to purchase land from the Piankeshaw but was not allowed to. He then entered a case against McIntosh, but still, private citizens could not purchase land from the Native Americans. This contradicts with the constitution because the constitution has a clause(s) saying that the US should do commerce with the Native Americans, but private citizens are not allowed to purchase any land from the Native Americans or do any commerce with them. The clause that says that the US should do commerce with the Native Americans is “The Congress shall have Power to ...regulate Commerce...with the Indian Tribes....” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Although, some would say that the Constitution states that America should do commerce with the Indians, and not citizens, the Constitution continuously uses America the citizens of America.
The 9th Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that just because something is not in the constitution, it doesn’t mean it’s not a law. There is a clause in the Constitution that say that the US should do commerce with Native Americans “The Congress shall have the Power to…regulate Commerce…with Indian Tribes…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) Although, the US Government did make a law the said that US citizens could not purchase land from the Indians. Showing, that the Johnson v. McIntosh case is not unconstitutional and does not contradict with the Constitution because the 9th Amendment shows that the law that did not allow American citizens to do commerce with Indians is still a law that needs to be followed even though it is not in the Constitution. Therefore the Johnson v. McIntosh case and verdict is constitutional.
The Holt v. Hobbs case was about an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction who wanted to grow a beard due to religious purposes. The prisoner Gregory Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad) was a practicing Salafi Muslim who wanted to grow a beard for religious purposes. He wanted an injunction and temporary excuse from those of the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ grooming policy to grow a beard. The department allowed trimmed mustaches and quarter-inch bears for diagnoses dermatological problems but did not allow facial hair otherwise. Holt argued that growing a beard was necessary for part of the practice of his religion, Islam. He said that the grooming policy did not let him, and that there for the grooming policy was a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The verdict was that Holt would limit his beard to a length of one-half on an inch as a form of compromise with the policy.
This contradicts with the constitution because the first amendment of the bill of rights, which is in the constitution, is being contradicted. The first amendment does not allow Congress to take away freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to practice any religion. Also freedom of peaceful assembly and petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The bill of rights applies to everyone, even inmates. Although, when you are an inmate your rights have to be modified due to the situation. For example, you no longer have a right of privacy. This is the same with other common rights (bill of rights). When Holt wanted to grow a beard it was against rules because only those with dermatology issues could. Holt wanted to grow a bear for religious reasons but he was not allowed to. That is completely constitutional because like the right of privacy, his 1st amendment right, “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” needed to be modified to for his prison life. Therefore the Holt v. Hobbs case and verdict is constitutional.
The Johnson v. McIntosh case and verdict also contradicts with the Declaration of Independence. The right of unalienable rights is contradicted in the Johnson v. McIntosh case. Unalienable rights are natural and secure rights guaranteed to each American. It guarantees the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. Johnson wanted to purchase land from the Piankeshaw but was not allowed to. He then entered a case against McIntosh, but still, private citizens could not purchase land from the Native Americans. This contradicts with the right of unalienable rights because the right to acquire and enjoy property is one of the many unalienable rights and that was contradicted because Johnson and other citizens were not allowed to purchase land from the Indians, but our unalienable rights do allow it. Therefore, the verdict of the Johnson v. McIntosh case contradicts with the Declaration of Independence.
All five American ideals in the Declaration of Independence of Unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and All Men Are Created Equal are all contradicted in the Holt v. Hobbs case. The Holt v. Hobbs case was about an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction who wanted to grow a beard due to religious purposes. The prisoner Gregory Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad) was a practicing Salafi Muslim who wanted to grow a beard for religious purposes. He was denied that right until the case was taken to the Supreme Court and the verdict was that he could grow his beard to one-half on an inch. This case contradicts with the Declaration of Independence because Holt was denied to live his life with personal liberty, which is one of the unalienable rights, because he could not grow a beard. He was also denied the right to life. Holt could not live his life as the way it pleased him because he was not allowed to grow a beard for religious purposes. Holt was also denied liberty because he could not do what he would like freely, which was to grow a beard. Holt was also denied the pursuit of happiness because growing a beard satisfied him and he was denied to grow one, contradicting the right of the pursuit of happiness. Lastly, he was denied that all men are created equal because he couldn’t grow a beard to practice his religion which was a right that everyone else had but he did not, making his rights not as equal to others. All five American ideals in the Declaration of Independence listed above are contradicted in the Holt v. Hobbs case.
The constitution is a document containing fundamental principles for the United States of America. It is a living document, meaning that it can be modified to fit with the time and day of America. Although, it gives the citizens America the rights that they should endure, we did and often contradict it. In the past, the Johnson v. McIntosh case and verdict contradicted with the constitution because Johnson was not allowed to buy land from the Indians, even though in the Constitution it said that we should do commerce with the Indians. In the present, The Holt v. Hobbs case contradicted with the constitution because a prisoner, Gregory Holt was not allowed to grow a beard for religious purposes.
Johnson v. McIntosh case was that private citizens could not purchase lands from Native Americans. This did not allow people to do commerce with the Native Americans. Johnson wanted to purchase land from the Piankeshaw but was not allowed to. He then entered a case against McIntosh, but still, private citizens could not purchase land from the Native Americans. This contradicts with the constitution because the constitution has a clause(s) saying that the US should do commerce with the Native Americans, but private citizens are not allowed to purchase any land from the Native Americans or do any commerce with them. The clause that says that the US should do commerce with the Native Americans is “The Congress shall have Power to ...regulate Commerce...with the Indian Tribes....” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3). Although, some would say that the Constitution states that America should do commerce with the Indians, and not citizens, the Constitution continuously uses America the citizens of America.
The 9th Amendment states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This means that just because something is not in the constitution, it doesn’t mean it’s not a law. There is a clause in the Constitution that say that the US should do commerce with Native Americans “The Congress shall have the Power to…regulate Commerce…with Indian Tribes…” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) Although, the US Government did make a law the said that US citizens could not purchase land from the Indians. Showing, that the Johnson v. McIntosh case is not unconstitutional and does not contradict with the Constitution because the 9th Amendment shows that the law that did not allow American citizens to do commerce with Indians is still a law that needs to be followed even though it is not in the Constitution. Therefore the Johnson v. McIntosh case and verdict is constitutional.
The Holt v. Hobbs case was about an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction who wanted to grow a beard due to religious purposes. The prisoner Gregory Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad) was a practicing Salafi Muslim who wanted to grow a beard for religious purposes. He wanted an injunction and temporary excuse from those of the Arkansas Department of Corrections’ grooming policy to grow a beard. The department allowed trimmed mustaches and quarter-inch bears for diagnoses dermatological problems but did not allow facial hair otherwise. Holt argued that growing a beard was necessary for part of the practice of his religion, Islam. He said that the grooming policy did not let him, and that there for the grooming policy was a violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The verdict was that Holt would limit his beard to a length of one-half on an inch as a form of compromise with the policy.
This contradicts with the constitution because the first amendment of the bill of rights, which is in the constitution, is being contradicted. The first amendment does not allow Congress to take away freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom to practice any religion. Also freedom of peaceful assembly and petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. The bill of rights applies to everyone, even inmates. Although, when you are an inmate your rights have to be modified due to the situation. For example, you no longer have a right of privacy. This is the same with other common rights (bill of rights). When Holt wanted to grow a beard it was against rules because only those with dermatology issues could. Holt wanted to grow a bear for religious reasons but he was not allowed to. That is completely constitutional because like the right of privacy, his 1st amendment right, “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” needed to be modified to for his prison life. Therefore the Holt v. Hobbs case and verdict is constitutional.
The Johnson v. McIntosh case and verdict also contradicts with the Declaration of Independence. The right of unalienable rights is contradicted in the Johnson v. McIntosh case. Unalienable rights are natural and secure rights guaranteed to each American. It guarantees the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. Johnson wanted to purchase land from the Piankeshaw but was not allowed to. He then entered a case against McIntosh, but still, private citizens could not purchase land from the Native Americans. This contradicts with the right of unalienable rights because the right to acquire and enjoy property is one of the many unalienable rights and that was contradicted because Johnson and other citizens were not allowed to purchase land from the Indians, but our unalienable rights do allow it. Therefore, the verdict of the Johnson v. McIntosh case contradicts with the Declaration of Independence.
All five American ideals in the Declaration of Independence of Unalienable Rights, Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, and All Men Are Created Equal are all contradicted in the Holt v. Hobbs case. The Holt v. Hobbs case was about an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction who wanted to grow a beard due to religious purposes. The prisoner Gregory Holt (also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad) was a practicing Salafi Muslim who wanted to grow a beard for religious purposes. He was denied that right until the case was taken to the Supreme Court and the verdict was that he could grow his beard to one-half on an inch. This case contradicts with the Declaration of Independence because Holt was denied to live his life with personal liberty, which is one of the unalienable rights, because he could not grow a beard. He was also denied the right to life. Holt could not live his life as the way it pleased him because he was not allowed to grow a beard for religious purposes. Holt was also denied liberty because he could not do what he would like freely, which was to grow a beard. Holt was also denied the pursuit of happiness because growing a beard satisfied him and he was denied to grow one, contradicting the right of the pursuit of happiness. Lastly, he was denied that all men are created equal because he couldn’t grow a beard to practice his religion which was a right that everyone else had but he did not, making his rights not as equal to others. All five American ideals in the Declaration of Independence listed above are contradicted in the Holt v. Hobbs case.