INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND SOCIAL ORDER2The difference between individual rights and social order is that individual rights give us our personal liberties, freedom of expressions, and having moral principles that connotes on individual freedom in a social setting. These rights have been granted to us by the Bill of Rights,which is the backbone to what freedom is all about, and because of these rights, the government are not to infringe on them, nor make laws that can limit, or prevent us from acting upon them. Whereas, social order, on the other hand, consists of laws that are applied within our society. These laws are a way for society to regulate and control is one’s behavior, which is linked to social structures, and norms, that are a necessity for maintaining social order (Maiese, 2003). In examining the effects of both individual rights and social order on the legal system overall, the effects, might be perceived as being liberating or oppressive, preserving the status quo, or providing the means and opportunity to challenge the existing social order, it all depends on how you look at it, both have been used to dominate and liberate individuals within the legal system. (Champion, Hartley, & Rabe, 2012, p3). In one’s opinion, the amendment that offers the most protection in dispute resolutions would be the first amendment, because it applies to both state and federal government through the fifth and fourteenth amendment. The first amendment is an instrument of protection that ensures that the rights and liberties of citizens are secure from being infringed upon by the government; besides, that’s what the Bill of Rights are for! The first amendment guarantees that the laws are applied fairly and equally to all citizens. Therefore, not depriving anyone of “life, liberty or property,” without due process of law (American Government, 2014). As for the first amendment providing the framework to facilitate citizen governmental interactions, one would say “no, not really.” The United States Supreme Court gives you the framework of how the first amendment is applied.The essential ways in which law makes social change in an American society through judicial activism, is currently done through the judiciary. Being that they have been the most influential when making decisions on social change when rendering their decisions in legal casessuch as, for example, in the case of Miranda v. Arizona. Legislatures however, are opposed to judicial activism, because they feel that they should have the exclusive authority to implement in making new laws, and by using law as a method, they can initiate broader social change (Champion, Hartley, & Rabe, 2012).