The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in our land, hears over
80 cases a year. Only the most significant cases continue to be studied. Over
the next 3 paragraphs, you will learn about three important cases that help to
maintain our democracy. They are Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), U.S.
v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310
(2010). These three cases are very important, and they are worth analyzing
over and over again.
Engel v. Vitale was a case that started
in the 1950s when New York schools wanted teachers to lead the children in
non-denominational prayer. A parent, Steven Engel, challenged the schools
because he said that it violated the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment states,the next 3 paragraphs, you will learn about three important cases that help to
maintain our democracy. They are Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), U.S.
v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310
(2010). These three cases are very important, and they are worth analyzing
over and over again.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Engel
sued the schools and it went to the Supreme Court in 1962. The disposition of
the case was 6-1 in favor of Engel. The Supreme Court agreed that the New York
schools violated the 1st Amendment by establishing religion in the schools.
Chief Justice Warren led a liberal court for 16 years. The Court used a loose
interpretation of the US Constitution for this case. A loose interpretation is when the Supreme Court does not follow the Constitution word for word but rather interprets the document in today 's world to see what is best for our democracy. The judges felt that the essence of the 1st Amendment was violated. There wasn’t much of a role played by the
Chief Justice in this decision because he voted with the majority of the Court.
The case was first heard by the New York State Supreme Court. It was brought to
the Court because Engel didn’t want his son to be forced to recite a prayer at
school everyday. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion,
assembly and petition. This case is a reflection of the 1st Amendment because
it was protecting the students’ religious beliefs. The Court decided that the
New York Schools were violating religious protection. In a similar case, Abington
School District v. Schempp, the Pennsylvania law cited that all students
had to do the Pledge of Allegiance and a reading from the Bible. The Engel
v. Vitale case was cited in the Supreme Court case, and Schempp won the
case because it violated the Establishment Clause.
sued the schools and it went to the Supreme Court in 1962. The disposition of
the case was 6-1 in favor of Engel. The Supreme Court agreed that the New York
schools violated the 1st Amendment by establishing religion in the schools.
Chief Justice Warren led a liberal court for 16 years. The Court used a loose
interpretation of the US Constitution for this case. A loose interpretation is when the Supreme Court does not follow the Constitution word for word but rather interprets the document in today 's world to see what is best for our democracy. The judges felt that the essence of the 1st Amendment was violated. There wasn’t much of a role played by the
Chief Justice in this decision because he voted with the majority of the Court.
The case was first heard by the New York State Supreme Court. It was brought to
the Court because Engel didn’t want his son to be forced to recite a prayer at
school everyday. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion,
assembly and petition. This case is a reflection of the 1st Amendment because
it was protecting the students’ religious beliefs. The Court decided that the
New York Schools were violating religious protection. In a similar case, Abington
School District v. Schempp, the Pennsylvania law cited that all students
had to do the Pledge of Allegiance and a reading from the Bible. The Engel
v. Vitale case was cited in the Supreme Court case, and Schempp won the
case because it violated the Establishment Clause.
The U.S. v. Lopez case began in 1992 when Alfonso Lopez brought a gun to
school and was charged by the state and federal government. Lopez was
charged for violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act.
Lopez didn’t dispute that he brought a gun to school. He disputed that he
should be charged by the state rather than being charged federally because the
schools were under the state's jurisdiction. The disposition of the case was a
5-4 decision in favor of Lopez in the Supreme Court in 1995. The Court stated
that Congress was overreaching their powers through the Gun-Free School Zones
Act and that the act was violating the 10th Amendment. The court was
conservative and led by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Chief Justice William
Rehnquist was the deciding justice in the 5-4 vote. Lopez’s case was first
heard in a court in Texas and then it went to the Supreme Court. Lopez’s case
was heard because he thought he should be charged by the state instead of being
charged federally. The 10th Amendment was created to split the powers between
the federal government and the states. The Amendment says that the federal
government only gets the powers assigned to them in the Constitution. This case
is a reflection of the 10th Amendment and the separation of federal and state
powers. This case relates to the Wickard v. Filburn case which gave a
lot more power to the federal government. On the other hand, the judgment in
U.S. v. Lopez served to limit federal power.
Lopez didn’t dispute that he brought a gun to school. He disputed that he
should be charged by the state rather than being charged federally because the
schools were under the state's jurisdiction. The disposition of the case was a
5-4 decision in favor of Lopez in the Supreme Court in 1995. The Court stated
that Congress was overreaching their powers through the Gun-Free School Zones
Act and that the act was violating the 10th Amendment. The court was
conservative and led by Chief Justice Rehnquist. Chief Justice William
Rehnquist was the deciding justice in the 5-4 vote. Lopez’s case was first
heard in a court in Texas and then it went to the Supreme Court. Lopez’s case
was heard because he thought he should be charged by the state instead of being
charged federally. The 10th Amendment was created to split the powers between
the federal government and the states. The Amendment says that the federal
government only gets the powers assigned to them in the Constitution. This case
is a reflection of the 10th Amendment and the separation of federal and state
powers. This case relates to the Wickard v. Filburn case which gave a
lot more power to the federal government. On the other hand, the judgment in
U.S. v. Lopez served to limit federal power.
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Communication case began
when Citizens United made a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton in the
Clinton v. Obama election in 2008. The film cost Citizens United $1,000,000.
The film was called electionary communications
which weren’t allowed so Citizens United went to the Supreme Court in 2010. The
disposition of the case was 5-4 in favor of Citizens United. The Supreme Court
ruled that the McCain-Feingold Act which restricted involvement was
unconstitutional and violated the 1st Amendment protection of freedom of
speech. The Court that decided the case was conservative. Supreme Court Justice
John Roberts made the deciding vote in favor of Citizens United. The first
court that heard the case was the U.S. District Court in the District of
Columbia. They heard the case because Citizens United challenged the
McCain-Feingold Act. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, press,
religion, assembly and petition. This case connects to the 1st Amendment
because it involves limiting freedom of speech. This case relate to United
States v. O’Brien which is also about freedom of speech. O’Brien burned his
draft card when he was forced into the military and was convicted of a federal
crime. Later, the Supreme Court determined burning the draft card was protected
by the freedom of speech.
which weren’t allowed so Citizens United went to the Supreme Court in 2010. The
disposition of the case was 5-4 in favor of Citizens United. The Supreme Court
ruled that the McCain-Feingold Act which restricted involvement was
unconstitutional and violated the 1st Amendment protection of freedom of
speech. The Court that decided the case was conservative. Supreme Court Justice
John Roberts made the deciding vote in favor of Citizens United. The first
court that heard the case was the U.S. District Court in the District of
Columbia. They heard the case because Citizens United challenged the
McCain-Feingold Act. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech, press,
religion, assembly and petition. This case connects to the 1st Amendment
because it involves limiting freedom of speech. This case relate to United
States v. O’Brien which is also about freedom of speech. O’Brien burned his
draft card when he was forced into the military and was convicted of a federal
crime. Later, the Supreme Court determined burning the draft card was protected
by the freedom of speech.
These three cases are very important in our
judicial history. Engel v. Vitale is important because it said that people
couldn’t be forced to go through religious activities at school. U.S. v.
Lopez is significant because it gave a clearer distinction between federal
and state powers. Citizens United v. FEC was also a big case because
people were allowed to publish advertisements about what they believe in for
elections with few limitations. The reason people still learn about these cases
is because these cases helped preserve our democratic ideals.
judicial history. Engel v. Vitale is important because it said that people
couldn’t be forced to go through religious activities at school. U.S. v.
Lopez is significant because it gave a clearer distinction between federal
and state powers. Citizens United v. FEC was also a big case because
people were allowed to publish advertisements about what they believe in for
elections with few limitations. The reason people still learn about these cases
is because these cases helped preserve our democratic ideals.
Comments
Post a Comment