American Constitutional Law

Following the upholding of the practices of the legislative practice of prayer by the court, it means that a national prayer day could be constitutional but it leaves many legal questions.  The prayer practice was established on the basis of the essentials of Establishment Clause and as a practice that has been embedded in tradition and the history of the country (Fisher & Harriger, 2016, 390). This practice has existed without the violation of the law requiring that no law relating to the establishment of religion shall be made by the congress. 

The practice of prayer in a National Prayer Day does not compel any action that concerns a religion and does not involve imposing any kind of sanctions or penalties.  The legislative prayer session involves a chaplain who is under the payroll of the government and the legislative members and staff.  Considering the issues that rose at the hearing of Marsh v. Chambers case, it follows that a National Prayer day could not be in violation of the principle of government neutrality towards the religion.  Another fact that even though the issue of prayer tend  to lean more on Christian faith ,  members of  from other religions have not been  prevented from participating and offering prayers . The National Prayer Day urges the public to participate in various religious activities, and this is not similar to allowing the engagement of legislators in prayer. Hence, since Marsh had no control over the constitutionality of this day, the principal of government neutrality is not affected by its observance.  The mere endorsement of practices of certain religion does not mean the violation of the Establishment clause (Fisher & Harriger, 2016,446).  In a similar manner, a National Prayer Day is just an acceptable acknowledgment of various beliefs that are widely held by among the citizens of the country.

 

 

The rights of an individual to own a gun for the purpose that are lawful like self-defense within their homes. Previous court cases do not foreclose the interpretation of done by the court in Heller’s case nor do they refute the interpretation of the individual rights. The court was therefore right by not limiting the right of an individual to bear and keep the firearm to the purposes of militia.  On the other hand, like many of the rights afforded by the constitution, the right in Second Amendment is limited since it is not a right to carry or keep a weapon in any way and for whatever purpose(Fisher & Harriger, 2016,65). Hence, the opinion of the court or its decision should not be viewed as casting doubt on the prohibitions on firearm possession by mentally ill individuals or criminals or the enacted laws that forbids people from carrying their firearms in sensitive areas or places like schools. It should also not also be seen as countering laws that impose qualifications or conditions in the sale of firearms.

The second amendment should lean more on protecting collective rights rather than personal rights.   The collective right cannot be asserted legally by an individual because the rights of the majority would be violated if the right of an individual does not have limit.  Having the interpretation of the amendment to focus on the protection of the individual right would be delusion that ignores the original intention of this Amendment by those who wrote it (Fisher & Harriger, 2016, 65).  Even where the personal right to possess firearm for personal defense is upheld, the collective rights should prevail  since it is possible for humans to abuse the rights of others in regard to their security  on the basis of individual right. In relation to this, gun regulations on licensing and purchase of the firearm should be permitted.  

Reference

Fisher, L., & Harriger, K. J. (2016). American constitutional law. 65 , 390, 446