First Amendment protects against governmental actions
1. How would the legal dilemma(s) posed in this scenario likely be resolved if no Constitution existed? Does what you imagine seem impartial and/or fair to all parties?
2. You are a paralegal assigned to assisting Sandra's lawyer.
Further assume that the lawyer for whom you work wants you to outline the basic arguments that should be made for the respective client (either Sandra or Sam). Upon what resource(s) did you rely in your proposed legal argument?
Note that the First Amendment protects against governmental actions, not those of private individuals. Also, what is the law that gives First Amendment rights to corporations?
3. Do you agree with corporations having First Amendment rights? Why or why not? Do you think that corporations should be able to impose the religious beliefs of the owners on the employees and not be subject to restrictions like Title VII? What if Sam was a Scientologist? What if Sam was a member of a religion created by his cousin? How do you know if a religious practice is protected? Does the US need a constitution or not? Why?
Sample Solution
- If no Constitution existed, the legal dilemma(s) posed in this scenario would likely be resolved by the government in power. The government could decide to side with Sandra, Sam, or both. There is no guarantee that the government would be impartial or fair to all parties.
The government's decision would likely be based on a number of factors, including the law, public opinion, and its own political interests. The law might not be clear on how to resolve the dilemma, so the government would have to interpret it. Public opinion might favor one party or the other, and the government might be influenced by that. The government's own political interests might also play a role in its decision.
Full Answer Section
It is impossible to say for sure how the government would resolve the dilemma without knowing more about the specific situation. However, it is clear that without a Constitution, there is no guarantee that the legal process would be impartial or fair to all parties.- If I were a paralegal assigned to assist Sandra's lawyer, I would outline the following basic arguments for her case:
- Sandra has a right to privacy. The Constitution protects her right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government's wiretapping of Sandra's phone conversation was a violation of her privacy rights.
- The evidence obtained from the wiretap should be suppressed. The evidence is inadmissible because it was obtained illegally.
- Sandra is innocent of the crime she is charged with. There is no other evidence against her, and the wiretap evidence should not be used to convict her.
- The Constitution of the United States
- The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution
- Case law on the right to privacy
- Case law on the admissibility of evidence obtained illegally
- The government might create its own laws to deal with the situation. These laws might be fair and impartial, or they might be biased in favor of one party or the other.
- The government might rely on traditional customs and practices to resolve the dilemma. These customs and practices might be fair and impartial, or they might be outdated and unfair.
- The government might try to mediate a solution between the parties involved. This might be the most likely outcome if the government is committed to resolving the dilemma fairly.