Through the United States Constitution, every human has certain, undeniable rights that must be protected. Inevitably, there are cases that the Constitution will not clearly answer. Thus, it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the law and give justice to its citizens. Three cases where the Supreme Court clarifies the law include the cases of Engel v Vitale, U.S v Lopez, and Citizens United v FEC.
In 1959, Steven Engel was the face of a lawsuit accusing school board president Vitale, of forcing Christian beliefs on the students of his public school, through the use of a daily, morning prayer. Parents were angered about the prayer, as it referenced the dependence of the Almighty God, claiming it was a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421 (1962), reached the New York State Supreme Court and The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, both who sided with Vitale. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed that decision, before it was finally brought to the United States Supreme Court. The final ruling was released on June 25, finding the prayer unconstitutional with a decisive 6-1 vote. Although the prayer was voluntary, it used the public school system to encourage students to recite the prayer filled with Christian beliefs and morals. Considering the diversification of the court, as three justices were conservative, three were liberal, and one was middle, the ruling did not appear to be affected by the political stances of the justices. Although, Chief Justice Earl Warren heavily influenced the decision, as he was petitioning for the side of Engel through his leadership of the oral arguments.
In 1994, charges were pressed against Alfonzo Lopez after he carried a concealed weapon into his Texas high school. Lopez was charged with violating a federal criminal statute known as the Guns- Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibits any individual from knowingly possessing a firearm in a school zone. In the initial trial, Lopez was found guilty and sentenced to six months imprisonment, with an additional two years prohibition. After the ruling was appealed several times, U.S v Lopez, 373 US 427 (1963), reached the US Supreme Court. Lopez’s lawyers argued that because schools were under state jurisdiction and not federal, Congress did not have the power to pass the Gun- Free School Zones act to begin with. A 5-4 decision was ruled in Lopez’s favor, as the jury found the Guns- Free School Zones Act of 1990 to be overstepping its boundaries under the Commerce Clause in the US Constitution, or the 14th amendment. Taking into account the intense split in political views, with the five justices that voted in Lopez’s favor being conservative and the four that voted against leaning left, it can be inferred that the political stance of the court played a large role in the disposition of the case. Chief Justice Rhenquist voted with the majority and helped plead the case for Lopez as he lead the oral arguments on November 8, 1994.
In 2008, Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, released a documentary that portrayed Hilary Clinton in a poor manner. However, the BCRA prohibited corporations and super pacs from using their general treasuries to finance any type of “electioneering communication” within 30-60 days of a primary or general election. Because of this, Citizens United filed for an injunction to prevent the BCRA from affecting their documentary Hilary: The Movie. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 US_(2010), reached the U.S Supreme Court after The U.S District Court ruled against Citizens United on all accounts. After the case was argued, displaying the various outlooks on the situation, The Supreme Court overruled the original verdict in a 5-4 vote. The First Amendment assures the right to free speech, including corporations. This dismisses any limitations or bans on the corporate funding involving political matters. All five justices who voted to discard the BCRA’s bans were conservative. This shows in large how political views affected the vote, especially considering Hilary Clinton was a democratic nominee. Chief Justice John Roberts lead the oral arguments, and appointed Anthony Kennedy to write the majority piece, dismissing himself from the responsibility.
While all of these cases were presented to the United States Supreme Court many years ago, the prominent issues displayed throughout are still relevant in today’s society. In the case Engel v Vitale, the right to freedom of religion was violated. Today, there is heavy discrimination towards various religious groups, especially Muslims. An estimated 25 percent of adults who were raised Muslim no longer identify with the Islamic religion. This shows the effects of the discrimination within the United States indirectly violating their freedom of religion. Today, there is heavy discussion on whether or not the United States should intensify its gun regulation. However, the second amendment stands as a barrier, protecting the right to own and possess weapons of their choice. This is similar to what Alfonzo Lopez was fighting for after bringing his case to the Supreme Court in 1994. Hilary: The Movie caused heavy controversy after bashing presidential candidate Hilary Clinton. However, today, it is common to see commercials directly targeting presidential candidates in a negative connotation. This is because of the right to free speech, which protected Citizens United in their case in 2008. Therefore, while the Supreme Court is in place to ensure the Constitution is followed, it does not counteract all of the problems that society faces due to this document.
Works Cited
- Clarence Thomas.” Biography.com, A&E Networks Television, 20 July 2019, www.biography.com/law-figure/clarence-thomas.
3.) “Engel v. Vitale.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/engel-v-vitale/.
History.com Editors. “Citizens United vs. FEC.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 26 Mar. 2018, www.history.com/topics/united-states-constitution/citizens-united.
4.) History.com Editors. “Earl Warren.” History.com, A&E Television Networks, 9 Nov. 2009, www.history.com/topics/us-politics/earl-warren.
5.) Mohamed, Besheer, and Elizabeth Podrebarac Sciupac. “Islam Gains about as Many Converts as It Loses in U.S.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 26 Jan. 2018,
6.) Robertson, Stephen L. “William Douglas.” William Douglas, www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1328/william-douglas.
7.) “United States v. Lopez.” Ballotpedia, ballotpedia.org/United_States_v._Lopez.
8.) “US v. Lopez (1995).” Khan Academy, Khan Academy, www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/foundations-of-american-democracy/constitutional-interpretations-of-federalism/a/us-v-lopez-1995.
9.)www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/26/the-share-of-americans-who-leave-islam-is-offset-by-those-who-become-muslim/.
10.) “{{Meta.pageTitle}}.” {{Meta.siteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1260.
Comments
Post a Comment