¶ … First Amendment including kind cases The First Amendment is imbued with a degree of preeminence that supersedes virtually all other amendments of the United States Constitution, largely because it was the first of many. As such, its importance to the country and to protecting the rights of its citizens is largely self evident. Perhaps one of the most cogent testimonies to this fact is the numerous times this amendment has been cited in litigation enacted in this country. These many cases allude to the notion that the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, which are stratified in accordance to religion, freedom of speech, and lawful, peaceable assemblage, are vital to some of the most fundamental principles upon which the country was founded. An examination of the most salient of these court cases, as well as of the various components of this amendment, largely indicates the veracity of the preceding statements.

The First Amendment consists of a single sentence that is separated by three semicolons. The information contained in each of these semicolons denotes the three separate categories that this amendment encompasses. As part of the preamble to this amendment (which is contained in the first section but which simultaneously applies to all three), this amendment specifics that Congress will not make any laws pertaining to the different segments. This fact is of particular importance because it partially explains why a number of legal cases have invoked this amendment. The first codification states that Congress will not make a law that infringes upon "an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Congress, 1789). Religion has a long and decorous (or perhaps indecorous, depending on the viewpoint) history of intermingling with government. This initial section of the first amendment implies that the founding fathers were aware of this fact and were determined for theology or belief systems not to influence the governing of this country. Essentially, the meaning of this section of the amendment is that Congress will not show any partisanship towards a particular religion (meaning that there will be no national religion) and that people are free to practice whatever religion that they choose.

The second section of the first Amendment is also vitally important. In fact, in many ways, this second segment is one of the facets of live in America that is largely renowned across the world -- although one might argue that political leaders in other countries are not inclined towards it and do not want such beliefs influencing he people in their own countries. Specifically, this aspect of the amendment states that there will be no limitations on, "the freedom of speech, or of the press" (First Congress, 1789). This quotation means that people can say that which they please while in America (although there are certain restrictions on this right, as certain court cases indicate). Moreover, it also means that such freedom of speech applies to the media and to what is -- legally -- printed and published in this country. The implications of this part of the first amendment are highly significant. It means that the public can remain informed of numerous developments, even those which apply to the government and to the very legislative process that created this amendment. There are numerous other countries in which individuals or collectives cannot express opinions about the government, particularly if they are negative or slanderous towards that government. Yet the preservation of free speech in America also means that a free flowing exchange of ideas is possible, with the implication is that by fostering such a free flowing transfer of opinions, the country as a whole can benefit.

The third aspect of the First Amendment expressly states that there is a right "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances" (First Congress, 1789). It is hard to distinguish certain connotations of this part of the amendment with those of the preceding part, which explains why these ideas are contained in the same sentence. There is an inherent link between petitioning the government and having the right to free speech. One cannot do the former without the support of the latter. Similarly, as the preceding paragraph indicates, one of the most valuable applications of the latter is to do the former. In this respect, the second half (meaning the second clause) of the third part...

It therefore becomes all the more prudent to scrutinize the first clause of the third part of this amendment. This clause gives U.S. citizens the right to congregate and gather. The implications of this right is that they may do so in public places (since, presumably, they can already do so in private places that are largely outside the jurisdiction of the law as long as lawful activities take place there. The importance associated with this right is that people can come together and discuss affairs without any legal need to disperse them -- unless those same people then become unlawful or threaten to violate the peace of the land. Again, it is clear how these two clauses work well together, since one of the primary reasons why it may be necessary for people to gather in public places is to discuss aspects of the government that they take exception to or wish to change.
One of the most prominent issues that pertain to the second section of the first Amendment is the restraints on free speech. The primary reason for restraints on free speech in a country in which the freedom to speak is valued is to preserve the people and not endanger anyone. This fact was demonstrated quite clearly in a case that reached the Supreme Court known as Schenck v. United States. This case largely established the precedent that it is illegal to cry fire in a crowded theater, and precludes any speech that could exacerbate a situation in which there is "clear and present danger present" (Alexander, 2013, p. 594). What this phrase means is that it is a violation of the right to free speech to issue speech that directly and immediately harms other. Were one to cry 'fire!' In a crowded movie theater, patrons would think there was a fire and rush over one another to the exit, possibly injuring or slaying people in the process. Thus, the most important issue related to the second section of the First Amendment is to not harm others while exercising free speech. That which does harm others is forbidden. So, although there is free speech in the U.S., there are certain limits on it to keep people safe and to preserve the peace of country. This concept is actually aligned with most laws in the country. Things that are not expressly illegal are generally deemed legal -- unless doing them puts others in danger and infringes upon the rights of others to live peaceably. Shouting fire in a crowded movie theater would certainly produce such a reaction.

One of the main issues that arise when interpreting and utilizing the first section of the First Amendment is the line of distinction between church and state. That point of distinction is not always as clear as it might otherwise appear. One of the court cases that established this fact and which was greatly impacted by this section of the first amendment was Everson v. The Board of Education (Steinberg, 2011, p. 625). The crux of this court case was that there was a school district ordinance in New Jersey that provided tax refunds for those who took public transportation to and from school. These funds applied to those in both public and private schools. Some of the private schools were religious, and Everson sued stating that giving tax benefits to the parents of these children showed a preference to a particular religion (Christianity), especially since private schools are not typically allowed state or local money that is usually given to public schools. Although the plaintiff lost this case, it still illustrates that the first amendment serves to distinguish the church from the state.

One of the crucial facets of the third part of the first amendment is the freedom to associate with others. This section provides people the right to gather with one another, however, doing so does not necessarily mean that they can join groups and leave them at their own will. In the U.S., it took the court case of the NAACP v. Alabama, which was decided by the Supreme Court, to establish the fact that as it pertained to the first amendment, people indeed had the freedom to associate with others (Wilson, 2014, p. 734). This fact was pivotal during the Civil Rights era, and helped to prevent racist states from preventing certain Civil Rights groups from assembling and recruiting members.

Overall, the first amendment is an extremely valuable piece of legislation. It helps to ensure some of the basic fundamental rights in this country that the United States is…