Vanya, let's start with the A1: In addition to the privilege against self-incrimination, which functions in the criminal sphere, the First Amendment protects a right not to speak in the civil arena.
Quote:
We begin with the proposition that the right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all. See Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 633-634, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 1182-1183, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943); id., at 645, 63 S.Ct., at 1188 (Murphy, J., concurring). A system which secures the right to proselytize religious, political, and ideological causes must also guarantee the concomitant right to decline to foster such concepts. The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of “individual freedom of mind.” Id., at 637, 63 S.Ct., at 1185. This is illustrated by the recent case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974), where we held unconstitutional a Florida statute placing an affirmative duty upon newspapers to publish the replies of political candidates whom they had criticized.
Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714, 97 S. Ct. 1428, 1435, 51 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1977)
|
As an example: If the city in which I dwell passes an ordinance requiring that every parcel of real property put an election sign, "supporting one candidate for Mayor who has been duly placed upon the ballot," that law is invalid under the A1. If I refuse to put up such a sign, the Fifth Amendment right is not implicated by that refusal to act, but I have clearly violated the (unconstitutional) ordinance by refusing to express political speech, as required by the ordinance.
If the police later attempt to question me about such a refusal, I can then invoke the A5 for the right not to be compelled to incriminate myself. I'm going to have to shoot from the hip on the Milita Act, but here goes: As for the Milita Act, I'd have to go back and look at the history and see what, if any challenges were made to it. I ran a quick Westlaw search and I don't see any challenges to them. Laws are presumed constitutional unless and until someone successfully challenges them.