Too many times the First Amendment of the Constitution is called into question.  How much freedom is too much freedom? How may restrictions can they put on me before my first amendment rights before they are actually undermined to the point of where I no longer have any.

The First Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:

    "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise of  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."

Any one of us can probably think back to when the popular topic of discussion was the place of religion in school.  Are we or are we not allowed to say the Pledge of Allegiance in a classroom.  The most in question line: "One nation, Under God", rose controversy for years, and still remains a hot topic among school officials. 

The topic became even more of a heated issue when a California atheist sued the United States to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.  At his first hearing he lost, then he won in his appeal, but eventually lost when the case finally reached the Supreme Court. 

This controversy happened under the presidency of George Bush, who is most criticized for his idea of the "Faith-Based initiative", in which faith-based organizations could get federal funding where as they were previously barred. 

The Californian atheist brought about a huge wave of other grievance against the United States and more specifically President Bush's "Faith-Based Initiative".  In fact many public schools soon after the California atheist case, were asked to not observe any religious holidays in which decorations were used. 

All of these cases have one thing in common, the relationship between religion and government.  Where is its proper place? Is there any room for the freedom of the First Amendment in a public setting when it has the possibility to hurt someone. 

It is in a public school that we learn about the Constitution and how it is a living document that is used to protect the rights of individuals.  It is also the same document the calls into question our integrity of a human being to uphold the rights that are innately given to us. 

While the First Amendment does a sufficient job in explaining to us the freedom we should experience as Americans, to further validate the fundamentals of the First Amendment, The Constitution also has an addendum in Article Six at the end of the third clause that specifically addresses the issue of religion and the rights' of individuals:

    " No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

This clearly defines the integrity of the First Amendment and how we should all abide by what is clearly a right to all United States' citizens.  There is no requirement of religious beliefs to hold a public office position, and that is how the Constitution will uphold the stance it will innately hold through its living. 

The framers of the Constitution felt as though they had created an iron-clad document in which there would be no controversy.  In a perfect world right? The great thing about the Constitution, is the ability to continually ratify it to include all matters that may arise in years to come.

And its a good thing they did.  In 1789, James Madison proposed a series of amendment to the living document; the Constitution.  One of which concerned the First Amendment, more specifically religious freedom:

    "The civil rights of non shall be abridge on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion     be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext,  infringed."

This amendment to the Constitution satisfies the debate that was brought up recently, and this was the documentation that ultimately led the Supreme Court to make their decision in the California atheist case. 

And when there is iron clad evidence that presents itself in the Constitution to rule one way or the other in regards to the First Amendment, then there is no doubt in the outcome of a trial as such.    

So next time when you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, make sure you remember all of the controversy within the Pledge as well as the right to uphold it in the First Amendment of the Constitution. 

We hear of so many amendments that were added to the Constitution, but amending the Constitution is no easy task.

But the framers of the Constitution knew there needed to be a process to ensure tranquility among the citizens of the nation.  In fact, the Constitution itself enumerates two ways for how to propose an amendment, and one of those ways has yet to be used. 

In order for an amendment to successfully be added to the Constitution, a bill must come through and pass in both houses. Once the bill passes by a two-thirds majority, it goes on to the states.  This route of amendment-ship has been successfully followed by all current amendments.  Once it gets to the states, in order for it to successfully become an amendment it must pass through the states by a three-fourths vote. 

Then the Constitution specifically writes the four probable paths for an amendment:
    "   - Proposal by Convention of States, ratification by state conventions (never used)
        - Proposal by Convention of States, Ratification by state legislature (never used)
        - Proposal by Congress, Ratification by state conventions (used once)
        - Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times). "

It is also interesting to note that the "most powerful man in the world", the President of the United States, has no formal role in the amendment process.  His "veto power", as stated in Article 5, has no affect on the amendment process, nor in the ratification process. Therefore the system of Checks and Balances is very important in regards to adding an amendment to the Constitution.

An amendment to the Constitution must have a purpose. In the past, each amendment has come about in an effort to overrule a Supreme Court decision, to force about a societal change, or to revise the previously states details of the Constitution.

It is no simple task in getting an amendment added to the Constitution, in fact there is a huge library of failed amendments that have made it to the House, but were never ratified to be added as an amendment to the Constitution. 

In 1861, and amendment prohibiting Congress from making any laws or adding amendments to the Constitution in regards to the banning of slavery was brought to the hill. The amendment is still outstanding, and to this day only two states have actually ratified this bill.  But because it did not gain three-fourths of the states approval it was sent to the failed amendments table. 

One amendment that still remains a hot topic among politicians today is the voting rights of citizens in Washington DC.  Because they are not technically a state, but a district, they have not been granted the same voting rights as citizens in states.  This amendment was proposed in 1978, and its ratification expired in 1985 when it did not receive three-fourths ratification by the states. 

There is also no real deadline for when an amendment must be ratified by. So long as it is on the docket of cases for the Supreme Court, it has the ability to come back as a Convention of the States so to have another chance to be successfully ratified. 

The United States Constitution was ratified in 1789, and at the time contained no Bill of Rights.  It was not until the final days of the Constitutional Convention that a delegate proposed to add the Bill of Rights so as to protect the rights of its citizens'. 

Many of the framers of the Constitution feared that by adding the Bill of Rights you would undoubtedly leave out some fundamental rights.  It was not until Constitutional Law took affect later in 1791, and the need for a Bill of Rights were seen to be essential. 

The Bill of Rights was proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress.  And thus you have the Bill of Rights added to the Constitution.

With this ratification came a huge wave of controversy and issues regarding the Constitution, that there was such a high demand for specific attention to the detail in regards to the Constitution, thus came the birth of Constitutional Law. 

Constitutional Law concerns itself with the fundamental questions about the nature of our government and our society.  The study of Constitutional Law was created to specifically reveal the path of our history and how far we have come and United States citizens. As well as how to continue upholding the rights of citizens' as they are enumerated in the Constitution. 

Constitutional Law can single-handedly be responsible for the addition of the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth amendments after the Civil War, as well as the 1950s and 1960s desegregation battles.  Constitutional Law even has a current presence in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution in regards to the Internet craze.

Constitutional Law is complex in nature, but is a necessity to our everyday lives. It continues to be a reflection of our deepest values set forth on us by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the trajectory path of our Nation's moral trajectory.

Our Constitution is set up to be the framework of our Government, thus the study of Constitutional Law must be as adaptive as the document itself.  And because its must be as translucent as the Constitution, Constitutional Law must find itself constantly changing in order for it to keep up with the demand of United States Citizens.

Constitutional Law also has one of its most important jobs when it comes to upholding the integrity of human rights, more specifically the Bill of Rights.  The Bill of Rights was created to ensure certain rights to citizens that could never be infringed upon or taken away.  In fact, Constitutional Law was created with this very intention.

The Constitution is a complex document created to protect and govern its people, and Constitutional Law constantly has to deal with interpreting the enumerated parts of the Constitution. So when a certain amendment or any aspect of the Bill of Rights is called into question, a professional in the field of Constitutional Law would be the person most helpful in this subject.

Any time the specifics of the Constitution is called into question, The nation would call upon the help of an expert in Constitutional Law to help defend the living document and its Bill of Rights.