Introduction
The Bill of Rights applies to all US states and includes principles upon which the country is founded. The Constitution contains 27 Amendments, of which the first 10 constitute the Bill of Rights (US Capitol Historical Society, 2022; Greenberg & Page, 2018). Notions such as freedom, privacy, and autonomy are set out in this portion of the Constitution. In addition, each state has its own constitution, in addition to adhering to the aforementioned document.
Local precedents play a critical role, as they may include sections on problems that are either isolated or of extreme importance in that specific location. In the current paper, the first Ten Amendments will be compared and contrasted with their equivalents or parallels in the Arizona State Constitution. Specifically, the contexts of speech, the legal process, and privacy will be juxtaposed using federal and local documents.
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Speech is highlighted in the very first amendment. It states that individuals have the inherent right to express themselves freely through speech or the press (National Archives and Records Administration). The Arizona Constitution, specifically Section 6, ensures that each entity can speak, publish, and write freely, regardless of the subject, and is responsible for abusing that right (Arizona State Constitution, 1910).
This is an example of a similar law within a federalism paradigm that contrasts in its formulation and, as a result, in its reenactment. Researchers note that this consideration is one of the pillars of democracy. (Gunatilleke, 2020; Drieghe et al., 2023). In both cases, the documents protect those who wish to share information openly and transparently. For instance, journalists who want to publish articles about corporations’ unethical practices are free to do so. However, the Arizona Constitution also states that those who limit said right will face punishment. Hence, if corporations try to jeopardize the publications, they will face barriers.
Process of Law
The US Constitution, as well as the state of Arizona, legally protects the process of law. The federal perspective holds that imprisonment can be imposed only through due process of law, as noted in the Fifth Amendment (National Archives and Records Administration). Arizona State, specifically, Section Six, states that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the process of law (Arizona State Constitution, 1910).
The segments share the aim to ensure that legal procedures are applied before decisions on one’s freedom and autonomy are made. For example, a suspect cannot be prosecuted without a fair trial with evidence, testimony, and a jury. However, unlike the Federal law, the state law mentions the rights to live and own property, in addition to liberty. For example, the authority cannot confiscate a person’s house if they are suspected of committing economic fraud.
Privacy
An additional principle protected in both documents is privacy. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens, their homes, and their papers from unreasonable searches by the government (National Archives and Records Administration). Section eight of the Arizona state constitution states that private affairs and homes cannot be disturbed or invaded without lawful authority (Arizona State Constitution, 1910).
In both cases, people’s privacy and homes are protected from unlawful searches. For instance, police officers who receive information that an individual has illegal drugs cannot search them without a warrant. The difference is the specification of private affairs protection in the Arizona legislation. An example would be non-warranted surveillance of people without their consent.
Conclusion
The two legal documents serve to protect the rights of citizens entitled to said considerations. However, as determined during the analysis, the state constitution is more specific and detailed compared to the federal one. By exemplifying freedom of speech, the law process, and privacy, it was certain that the precedents are similar in nature, thereby engraining specific values as socially critical. On the other hand, specifications are provided for local contexts.
References
Arizona State Constitution, Publ. L. No. 55. (1910).
Drieghe, L., Roets, A., De keersmaecker, J., Van Hiel, A., & Bostyn, D. (2023). Support for freedom of speech and concern for political correctness. Journal of Individual Differences, 44(2), 115–123.
Greenberg, E. S., & Page, B. I. (2018). The struggle for democracy, 2018 elections and updates edition (12th ed.). Pearson.
Gunatilleke, G. (2020). Justifying limitations on the freedom of expression. Human Rights Review, 22(1), 91–108.
National Archives and Records Administration. (n.d.). The Bill of Rights: What does it say?
US Capitol Historical Society. (2022). The United States Constitution / Annotated: U.S. capitol history: USCHS. United States Capitol Historical Society.