accused and that none is to be maligned (Maltz, 2015). Gitlow and his associates are in no way to
deserving a right of independence in this case.
Annulling of the indictment against the four individuals, or a revision of the proceedings
against the accused is a promotion of the liberty of personalities in sight of federalism. This is so
on the grounds that the XIV amendment (Fox Jr, 2015) provided. The amendment declared that
neither the federal government nor the states shall deny any person their absolute rights without
sufficient and exhaustive legal procedure. The accused therefore has a right to be given a more
considerate hearing before abridging his liberty so substantially. “This Court has held … that the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect certain fundamental personal liberties from
abridgement by the Federal Government or the States…p150” this implies that it is within the
assignment of the Supreme Court to as much as possible attempt to protect the rights of citizens.
In light of personal responsibility, Gitlow’s losing of the case will promote personal
responsibility by requiring him and his mates to bear the resulting court action against their
personal choices. While nature provides that any person deserves a non-restriction to act, the
court is obliged to protect that right by only taking into consideration applicable statutes and
enforcing their intended implications. “The indulgence of evil is followed by punishment, because
it is an inexorable law of man’s organization. The choice of good is followed by happiness,
contentment, and prosperity. (Iachetta, 2018, P. 127)” Thereby, having indulged in statutory
offense, the three parties deserve punishment as much as the right they initially have. Activity
66A desambiguates - “No State shall … deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law” (Iachetta, 2018) and hence provides the capacity for the Court of Law to
restrict the accused’s liberties after sufficient court procedure.