Hello everyone!

 

I do a project which involves research of the U.S. law. What I need is to find out how can the rights mentioned in U.S. Constitution be limited. For example, Russian constitution has the following provision: "Rights mentioned is this paragraph may only be limited by a federal law". Is there anything similar in US legislation?  

Yes there is, I don't know where it is written though.

 

But for example, in the US if you are convicted of a felony crime your rights are limited; in some cases rather severely. Convicted felons cannot own firearms, in some cases cannot vote or serve in the military, and other restrictions depending on the conviction.

Yes there is, I don't know where it is written though.

 

But for example, in the US if you are convicted of a felony crime your rights are limited; in some cases rather severely. Convicted felons cannot own firearms, in some cases cannot vote or serve in the military, and other restrictions depending on the conviction.

Yeah I don't agree with felons not being able to serve in the military. Maybe firearms OK that's fine. But Any man willing to risk his/her life for the sake of keeping america safe, is a person with good moral character.

Yes, I know there are many limitations, but how are they implemented? Can that be done by state, by court decision, or only by federal law?

Yes, I know there are many limitations, but how are they implemented? Can that be done by state, by court decision, or only by federal law?

All jurisdictions can create laws that may limit the bill of rights, but the Supreme Court gave themselves the power to interpret the constitution in Marbury v. Madison, therefore they have the final say in any case where rights are questioned. Supreme Court decisions can make laws null and void or they can allow for much stricter laws to be passed.

The rights officially cannot be limited by any law; they can be reasonably regulated by any level of government, but reasonable regulation isn't technically "limiting" the right. The main idea of Constitutional rights is that they aren't granted by the Constitution; they are rights that all citizens are inherently entitled to (the phrase in the Declaration of Independence, which reflects the general idea, is that "[men] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"), and which the Constitution merely recognizes. Under that logic, there's no way a law can override them: if they weren't given by the government, the government doesn't get to take them away. The most the government can do is reasonable regulation (e.g. they can require protests to register with the police for regulatory purposes, but cannot discriminate based on content of the protest) -- the idea is that that regulation isn't actually limiting the core of the right, it's just filling in the gaps left by an extremely broad right, doesn't seriously burden people exercising their rights, and so it's not violating those rights. Whether a regulation is reasonable or not is determined by the courts.

The way it works in practice is that no law can ever explicitly override a Constitutional right. Instead, a law has to put a limit that would allegedly be implied in the right, or just reasonably regulates exercise of that right (which it's generally implied a sovereign government can do) -- for instance, the inherent right to free speech would never reasonably be considered to include the right to incite a riot (implied exception), or the right to use a heavy-duty sound system to share your views with the world at 4 AM in a residential neighborhood (reasonable regulation). The people who decide whether a limitation on the plain text of the right is a limitation on the inherent right, or whether it restricts something that wouldn't be considered one of the things encompassed by the right, is done by the courts.

The normal process is: Government passes law arguably restricting a constitutional right; it gets enforced (laws can't be challenged until they actually have an effect on someone, normally because they were enforced [though there are other ways to get standing, you can't just say "I think that law's unconstitutional, so I'm going to sue to stop it" -- you have to be able to show that it harms you in particular in an actual concrete case]); someone raises the objection that the law is unconstitutional; the trial court decides whether or not it violates the Constitution, but the other side can then appeal to higher courts to answer that question; and, eventually, it stops going higher (in federal courts, it either hits the Supreme Court or they decline to take the case), at which point whichever the highest court that ruled on the constitutionality of the law has decided it for all courts that appeal cases up to it (or all other courts, for the US Supreme Court). If the court finds that it violates the Constitution, it's invalid to the degree it does so, with no exceptions -- the only way to get a limitation in is to get a court to agree that it doesn't actually violate the right, and is just regulatory in nature or just bans something that would not be considered to be implied by the right (which there can be arguments about; obscenity is considered "traditionally unprotected" by free speech rules, so banning it is legal).

If the government wants to restrict the part of a right that is protected in a way that isn't reasonable regulation, they have to do so via Constitutional amendment, which requires 2/3 of each house of Congress *and* 3/4 of the states (each state either has to have their legislature approve the amendment, or it has to be passed by a popular referendum). It's really really hard to get an amendment passed (there have been only 27 in US history, and 11 of those [1-10 and 27] were proposed as part of the Bill of Rights; 1-10 were proposed and ratified as a group).

The rights officially cannot be limited by any law; they can be reasonably regulated by any level of government, but reasonable regulation isn't technically "limiting" the right. 

Oh, I see. So each act has to be specifically evaluated by the court to decide whether or not the regulation is reasonable. Thank you for a very detailed response, it really helped!

 

And a last question if I may: is transportation security regulated on federal only or also state levels? What I'm actually looking for is legislation which prescribes to install full body scanners in airports, which potentially violates people's right to health. So far I only found few mentions of advanced scanning systems in US Code and some court rulings. 

Oh, I see. So each act has to be specifically evaluated by the court to decide whether or not the regulation is reasonable. Thank you for a very detailed response, it really helped!

 

And a last question if I may: is transportation security regulated on federal only or also state levels? What I'm actually looking for is legislation which prescribes to install full body scanners in airports, which potentially violates people's right to health. So far I only found few mentions of advanced scanning systems in US Code and some court rulings. 

 

Depends. Many airports have their own airport police department that safeguard the property in addition to screeners, customs, ect. Public tansportation such as trains and buses can also have their own police force that has nothing to do with the federal government, such as the MBTA or NJ Transit system. 

Yeah I don't agree with felons not being able to serve in the military. Maybe firearms OK that's fine. But Any man willing to risk his/her life for the sake of keeping america safe, is a person with good moral character.

 

I disagree with this. Ok, every human who wants to risk his life for country is a real hero and he deserves respect, but person who committed a crime before that, dont respect somethink very importmant and this is law. Also I think that person is not any more trusted for working in army or police which are both very honorable and professional workplaces (they uses weapons to).

Even in our country convicted felons cant work in army or police and I think this is correctly.

Just my opinion

 

EDIT: I know we are all doing mistakes and if someone commit a crime which isnt so big and he truly regrets, than I agree that everyone deserves another chance .

 

Cheers

 

Edited August 14, 201411 yr by BlueAngel

I disagree with this. Ok, every human who wants to risk his life for country is a real hero and he deserves respect, but person who committed a crime before that, dont respect somethink very importmant and this is law. Also I think that person is not any more trusted for working in army or police which are both very honorable and professional workplaces (they uses weapons to).

Even in our country convicted felons cant work in army or police and I think this is correctly.

Just my opinion

 

Cheers

 

Terrible way to think. I wonder how you'd feel if the shoe was on the other foot. Whats with America these judging people without reason. You hear a story and boom automatically because the media makes it sound harsh that guy should be killed, or thrown in jail. Alot of people who are felons are felons against there will, and some of the felons had accidents like myself. Its a shame to know that you committed a mistake in your life and you still have people beating you up with words for it everyday. Why Live? why not just kill them all take all of the felons in america gather them up a burn them into pieces I mean We are worth nothing just sitting ducks why not?

 

You must not worry about felons, for they are marked for life and they know this. Its the people who are not felons that become felons later. Those are the one's you should be concerned with" They can strike at any giving moment." 

 

Those men, and women who kill there babies, the one's who go into schools and bomb the entire building. I think you'll find that when these people committed those acts they were people with no violent history at all. :) America always has its back turned.

Edited August 13, 201411 yr by NYPDDetectiveODonnell

Oh, I see. So each act has to be specifically evaluated by the court to decide whether or not the regulation is reasonable. Thank you for a very detailed response, it really helped!

 

And a last question if I may: is transportation security regulated on federal only or also state levels? What I'm actually looking for is legislation which prescribes to install full body scanners in airports, which potentially violates people's right to health. So far I only found few mentions of advanced scanning systems in US Code and some court rulings. 

The law may come into existence and it may be enforced, but the Supreme Court doesn't have to approve a law before it goes into effect. The court system comes into play when people dispute the constitutionality of a law.

Oh, I see. So each act has to be specifically evaluated by the court to decide whether or not the regulation is reasonable. Thank you for a very detailed response, it really helped!

 

And a last question if I may: is transportation security regulated on federal only or also state levels? What I'm actually looking for is legislation which prescribes to install full body scanners in airports, which potentially violates people's right to health. So far I only found few mentions of advanced scanning systems in US Code and some court rulings.

Airport security, in the sense of screening what goes on planes, is generally a federal matter. Airports themselves are patrolled by state or local law enforcement, though, with the exception of customs officers (who are obviously federal). I'm not sure states could implement their own screening even if they wanted to; it's possible they could, but it's possible the feds can say "this is our area, mind your own business" (which they can do if an area is under exclusive federal jurisdiction; for instance, states may not implement their own customs requirements on international passengers).

For "right to health" -- Full-body scanners are in fact installed by the federal government, not the states, so state constitutions are irrelevant (I suspect that most if not all countries with a federal system have the same rule, where states can't interfere with the federal government doing its job). The US constitution has no right to health; the closest it gets is that no one can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law", but that's somewhat different from what I imagine a right to health would be (specifically: "right to health" to me implies a positive duty on the government to ensure the health of its citizens; the right to due process before being deprived of life, liberty, or property implies that they only have to worry about it when the *government* is depriving someone of something, and someone can waive it to a degree). The more significant thing is the right to protection against unreasonable search without a warrant; that is what challenges to screening rely on, because it's both far more definite than any possible health risks and harder to get around (travelers can ask for a pat-down instead of scanning, which removes the health risk but not the privacy risk. But the reason that doesn't apply is that a) flying is voluntary, so if you don't want a search you don't have to have it, and b) it's an administrative search designed to stop contraband from going on planes, not to find evidence of a crime and send people to jail, and c) judges are human, and after 9/11 no one was going to restrict airport security (yes, that's definitely a factor, as it is in all legal systems where decisions are made by humans).

Also:

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread isn't about anything to do with felons; make a different thread to talk about that.

The law may come into existence and it may be enforced, but the Supreme Court doesn't have to approve a law before it goes into effect. The court system comes into play when people dispute the constitutionality of a law.

More than that: they can't rule on the constitutionality of a law unless there's a specific instance where a specific person or group is being affected by it. US federal courts are constitutionally forbidden from issuing abstract advisory opinions; they can only rule on concrete cases and controversies.

Airport security, in the sense of screening what goes on planes, is generally a federal matter.

 

I am very grateful for your help! You really did make a difference with your reply :) Thanks a lot! Aren't you a law student by chance?)