Amendments V. ArticlesEssay Preview: Amendments V. ArticlesReport this essayAmendments v. ArticlesThe Constitution of the United States of America was ratified in 1788. Since then there have been changes, amendments, to it. There are currently 27 Constitutional amendments. 148 years later in 1948, The Universal Declaration of Human rights was adopted. The Universal declaration of human rights consists of 30 articles. Today the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the second most translated piece of text in the world, second only to the bible. The Constitutional amendments and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are similar in regards to articles 5, 18, and 27, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to Amendments 8 and 1, of the United States Constitution. However these two documents do oppose one another in articles 12, 21, and 23, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to Amendments 4, 16, and 16, of the United States Constitution.
Article five of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” This is similar to what Amendment eight of the United States constitution says, which is “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” What these two have in common is that a prisoner of war, or if a person was to be put in prison because they were loitering outside of a White Hen, they could not be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. In this case the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is superior to that of the United States Constitutional Amendments. Article five is based on a worldly spectrum, where as Amendment eight only pertains to the United States of America.
Article eighteen of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.” This is similar to what Amendment One of the United States Constitution says, which is “congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What these two have in common is that a person can choose their own religion and that there shall be no interference with their choice and practice of religion. Although both deal with the same issue, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is superior because it deals on a worldly bases, and not just on one country. Before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was established World War II broke out. The first Amendment still existed, but because what was happening in Europe and not happening in America, the Constitutional Amendments had no power.
Article twenty-seven of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.” This is similar to what Amendment One of the United States Constitution says, which is “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” What these two have in common is that they do not limit ones ability to speak their mind. You have the right to participate in your culture and the culture of others. Both of these deal with expressing one self, but because the Universal Declaration of Human Rights deals with a bigger audience it is superior. Before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in Soviet Union not everyone could speak their mind. If a person wanted to create a funny show on how Soviet Union was different from America, it would not have been allowed. America could do nothing to help the people of the Soviet Union because the First Amendment only deals with citizens of America, and not the rest of the world.
Article twelve of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” This conflicts with Amendment four of the United States Constitution which says “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This proses a problem because article twelve says that no one can interfere with another persons
” However, what we should have to do is to say that a person is not permitted to engage in any unauthorized activity in any place or manner. Article two, page 6 is a prohibition against the Government from taking any steps to remove or destroy any person, property, or thing as well as a monument to America as the Government’s own. To put it simply: The monument of America ought to remain intact, in case of civil unrest, for an indefinite period to be decided by any citizen” The Government could choose to remove the monument or replace it, but it is only for a limited reason, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms will, after the destruction of the monument, be forever upheld. This is the idea and the solution to the problem of where to keep or to destroy this monument. It is only the people’s decision to remove the monument, not the Government, and the problem of what to do with this monument is not a particularly big one.‟ But this is especially relevant, because the Constitution places the right of all persons to keep and bear arms in strictest balance with the right of people to petition Congress for a redress of grievances and redress the wrongs done by individuals during the War for which they were victims. In fact, our nation cannot take the steps to remedy the injustice to which all persons at the United States are subjected without going outside of the scope of the amendment. This amendment, which now seems to us constitutional, takes the view that if any individual does anything objectionable in the State Government, there is a constitutional right to refuse his services. This is the only way to fix the problem. The United States Constitution requires that no person shall be compelled to serve in the service of that Government, so long as he keeps up the condition. This makes the idea for this amendment, and the idea proposed by Senator Mott, the National Committee on Women, that women and girls should be kept at home should not be accepted. Instead, its proponents would have us support equal pay for equal work. If the Department of Labor and any other employees, or those employees’ employer, pay no more than the amount the employees owe to the Department or the pay, that is unacceptable. If the employees paid at the same rate paid by the United States as the federal employees pay to the state and local governments and pay more than to any state and local employee, that is unacceptable. That does not mean women should be forced to work below subsistence for work that must be assigned to them by the government, but it does mean that they should be entitled to the same rights to work as employees of state, local, and tribal governments. That is a great line that I am proposing to introduce here, and I really believe that is the correct line, because no State and State agencies or their representatives. And I believe that even if the Department can’t pay for women’s work, it should be paid for it in such a way as to ensure that women are not forced to perform the same work as men. It is quite clear that the Government should take such a course, because if a federal agency wants to pay for someone from one State, it should pay them based on the employment they require, so it is very obvious that the problem will go