Ava Axelrood



Ava Axelrood
Mrs. Gordon
AP Government Summer Assignment
7.29.19

In 1784 the Supreme Court of the United States was established and has played one of the largest roles in our government ever since. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the U.S government, and very few cases are heard by the court each year. The Supreme Court also gives the last and final decision to any case being heard after closely analyzing it with the Constitution. Over hundreds of years the court has aged and evolved with humanity. Three cases that have helped make the Supreme Court into what it is today are: Marbury v. Madison; Tinker v. DMISCD; and Citizen United v. FEC. 
On February 24, 1803, Marbury v. Madison "5 US 137 (1803)" was decided. This case was established after putting the judicial review into action by the Supreme Court. After Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the 1800 presidential election, Adams appointed a bunch of judges from his Federalist party to the District of Columbia courts. However, Jefferson had James Madison hold up the commissions on the judges. Later, William Marbury, one of the appointed judges, brought the case to the Supreme Court to be decided. John Marshall, the Chief Justice, wrote the opinion for the case. Marshall ultimately decided that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that it wasn’t the Court’s place to rule in this case. The case was originally heard by the Supreme Court without any lower court hearings, and the disposition of the case ended with no opposition against it. Marbury v. Madison was one of the rare cases in which all liberal, conservatives, and middle moderates came together to agree on the case.  In Marbury v. Madison, the framers’ intent was to design a constitution that would establish foundational principles intended to sustain and guide the new nation into an uncertain future. The Framers also had intended that a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises. The Red Flag Gun Law has recently been trying to get passed by the government. The law entails that family members or law enforcement are allowed to petition a judge to temporarily remove guns from a person who seems to be a risk to themselves or to others. However, the law is left with a large amount of opposition due to the fact that the law could be going against the Constitution. Many people agree that this law violates both the Second Amendment and the due process. This means that if the law actually does violate the Second Amendment that it cannot go into effect because it goes against the Constitution. This relates to Marbury v. Madison because although there is a lot of opposition to the law, the law goes against the Constitution and therefore cannot be passed. This is the exact situation in which Marbury v. Madison went through.
More than a century later, The Tinker v. DMICSD "393 US 503 (1969)" case was fought. In 1965, students in Des Moines, Iowa showed up to school wearing black armbands to show support for a truce in the Vietnam war. Administrators of the school heard of this support and later created a policy that all students were prohibited to wear the black armbands. Students who refused to follow the administrators’ new policy would be consequently suspended. The parents of Mary Beth Tinker and her brother who had started the peaceful protest brought the case to lower courts to fight. The parents fought the school district as a violation to the students' First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. After the U.S District Court took the school district’s side in the case, the parents appealed to the Supreme Court in 1969. The disposition of the case ended with the Supreme Court deciding that the black armbands were a form of symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment. Thus, the school district had violated the students' First Amendment right of peaceful protest because the armbands didn’t interfere with the school’s ability to operate, and it did not put the school in any danger. The case ended in a 7-2 decision. Although the majority of the justices in the Supreme Court at the time were conservative, the decision for the Tinker v. DMICSD case was liberal because it protected the rights of freedom of speech for citizens which is seen as a liberal value. The Chief of Justice, Earl Warren, was in the majority of the vote but didn’t write the opinion for the case. I think the First Amendment relates the closest to Tinker v. DMICSD case because it is a fight against the school board in order to protect the students’ rights to peacefully protest. The First Amendment protects against any laws limiting the freedom of speech, religion, and the press, as well as the right to assemble and to petition the government. In this case the students’ rights for freedom of speech were being restricted, which is seen as unconstitutional. The students of the Des Moines school district used the black armband as a form of symbolic speech, and carried out peacefully without any harm to the people surrounding them. This means that the constitution protects their right to peacefully protest without being restricted to do so. Recently there have been many activists peacefully protesting for gun control because of law enforcement mistreatment of weaponry. On August 10, 2019, people peacefully gathered in the streets of Poulsbo, WA, to protest the misuse of weapons in honor of Stonechild Chiefstick, a member of the Chippewa Cree Tribe who was shot and killed by a Poulsbo police officer. This demonstrates citizens using their First Amendment right of free speech. This also relates back to Tinker v. DMICSD because both situations are peacefully fighting for what they believe in. 
Most recently decided in 2009, Citizens United v. FEC "558 US_ (2010)" was argued. This case originated after a critical documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” was produced by the conservative non-profit organization Citizens United. Citizens United wanted to air the documentary 30 days before the 2008 primary elections, but it went against the 2002 BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act). The BCRA had expanded the FECAs (Federal Employees Compensation Act) in which corporations and unions are forbidden against any electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary, and 60 days of an election. After the court found McConnell v. FEC constitutional,  McConnell depended on the Court's conclusion from the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case. This case entailed that corporations are allowed to use general treasury as long as it does not interfere with any political campaign in order to help minimize corruption. Citizens United tried to fight the case with claims that “Hillary: The Movie” didn’t fit the definition of electioneering communication. The case started in the U.S District Court for the District of Columbia in 2007, and was later appealed to the U.S Supreme Court in 2008. The disposition of the case ended with Judge Anthony M. Kennedy writing the opinion that the First Amendment protects the right of free speech, even if the speaker is a corporation. This decision effectively removed limitations on corporate funding of independent political broadcasts. The Roberts Court was labeled conservative, but the decision of the case was also liberal in protecting First Amendment rights, which is a value that liberals share, too. Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority of the vote with a 5-4 verdict on the case, in which the court overruled both Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. FEC. I think that this case is closest related to the First Amendment because the case entailed a fight to protect the citizens’ right for political spending. Political spending includes promotions and campaigns, which falls under the First Amendment right of freedom of speech. It is forecasted that political spending should top $6 Billion in 2020. Broadcasts and TV ads will reign supreme, totaling more than half-percent of the total paid media placements. Citizens United v. FEC helped allow candidates to spend massive amounts of money to advertise their campaigns because limitations on campaign spending goes against the First Amendment. 
Overall, these three cases helped show the evolution of the Supreme Court of the United States. Marbury v. Madison officially incorporated the Constitution, and helped exert power into the judicial branch due to checks and balances. This case also helped establish the Supreme Court and was one of the structural cases to our nation’s government. Citizens United v. FEC was an example of our First Amendment right being protected. Citizens are able to use their wealth and money to campaign for what they believe in, which is protected by freedom of speech. This case helped demonstrate judicial review in action because the judicial branch had to consider and abide by the Constitution when making a decision. Lastly, Tinker v. DMICSD also protected our First Amendment right of freedom of speech due to the cloth armband against the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court of the United States will continue to evolve from its beginning into present day. 

WORKS CITED

  • "Marbury v. Madison." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137. Accessed 26 Aug. 2019. 
  • Urofsky, Melvin I. “Marbury v. Madison.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/event/Marbury-v-Madison.
  • “Marbury v. Madison.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/marbury-v-madison.
  • HISTORY. “Marbury vs. Madison: What Was the Case About? | History.” YouTube, YouTube, 14 Sept. 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOvsZyqRfCo.
  • “Primary Documents in American History.” Marbury v. Madison: Primary Documents in American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress), https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/marbury.html.
  • "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205. Accessed 26 Aug. 2019. 
  • Duignan, Brian. “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 27 June 2019, https://www.britannica.com/event/Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission.
  • History.com Editors. “Citizens United vs. FEC.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 26 Mar. 2018, https://www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/citizens-united. 
  • “Tinker v. Des Moines (1969).” Khan Academy, Khan Academy, https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/civil-liberties-and-civil-rights/first-amendment-speech/a/tinker-v-des-moines. 
  • "Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21. Accessed 26 Aug. 2019.  
  • Park, Ken. “Peaceful Protests over Shooting Shuts down Downtown Poulsbo Streets.” Kitsap Daily News, Kitsap Daily News, 14 Aug. 2019, https://www.kitsapdailynews.com/news/peaceful-protests-over-shooting-shuts-down-downtown-poulsbo-streets/. 
  • “Political Spending to Top $6 Billion in 2020.” O'Dwyer's - The Inside News of PR and Marketing Communications, https://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/12840/2019-07-23/political-spending-top-6-billion-2020.html. 
  • Paterson, Leigh. “Poll: Americans, Including Republicans And Gun Owners, Broadly Support Red Flag Laws.” NPR, NPR, 20 Aug. 2019, https://www.npr.org/2019/08/20/752427922/poll-americans-including-republicans-and-gun-owners-broadly-support-red-flag-law. 

Comments

Post a Comment