SCOTUS and the 14th Amendment: One of America’s Most Important
Relationships
The Supreme Court’s job is to
interpret the Constitution when lower state and appeal courts have failed to
come up with a decision. The outcome of these arguments will change what our
society looks like in the future as well as the arguments themselves. All three
of the cases we examine here use the 14th amendment’s due process clause as
reasoning, which provides the equal protection of the law to every American
citizen.
Gideon vs.
Wainwright began In 1963, when Mr Gideon was accused of stealing from a pool
hall, which was considered a felony. According to Florida law at the time,
those who had been accused of a felony level crime didn’t have the right to
counsel. Because of this Mr Gideon was convicted and went to jail. From jail,
he wrote a letter to the Supreme Court telling them how unjustly he was treated
in his trial. The Supreme Court accepted his appeal and decided unanimously
that all state courts were required to provide a lawyer for all accused of a
crime, no matter the severity. This decision was no surprise due to the fact
that Chief Justice Earl Warren led a liberal majority. The same liberal
majority was very much reflective of the mini revolution going on in the 60’s
accompanying things like the civil rights movement. The court reasoned that the
6th amendment protects a citizen's right to counsel. Thanks to the 14th
amendment’s due process clause, it also protects a citizen suspected of being a
criminal.
McDonald vs.
Chicago sprouts from the City of Chicago’s handgun ban which was part of an
effort to limit crime in the city. The second amendment had limited gun control
laws in the past, however, this case was different because it concerned whether
or not this amendment could be used in states and not just on a federal level.
In the end, in a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court decided that the second
amendment was applicable to state law. This was no surprise considering the
fact that the court was led by a conservative majority under Chief Justice
Roberts. A citizen's right to bear arms is included in the 2nd amendment of the
Constitution, meaning that the handgun bans are unconstitutional when applied
to the 14th amendment’s due process clause.
FEC vs.
Citizens United started with a list of regulations called the BCRA, or the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, a list of regulations intended to stop
corporate funding of candidates' commercials. In 2002 the regulations’ ban on
“soft money” or the direct donation of money from corporation to candidate was
upheld in McConnell vs. FEC (540 US 92 2003). However, six years later in 2003
these regulations were applied to the film Hillary: The Movie. When
Clinton was running for President. Citizens United brought the case to the
Supreme Court, arguing that section 203 of BCRA, which prevented corporations from
funding political communication towards certain candidates, was in violation of
the First Amendment. They also argued that sections 203 and 201 (which made
sure that there was a disclaimer included in the media product when the
candidate didn’t support the communication) were also against the First
Amendment when applied to their movie. In a 5 to 4 vote, a conservative court
led by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts decided that corporate funding
of independent political broadcasts couldn’t be regulated by the BCRA. The
First Amendment states that all citizens have the right to free speech and
expression. Meaning that the BCRA couldn’t be applied to Hillary: The Movie because
it and the corporate money used to make it are a form of expression.
So far the
14th amendment and it’s due process clause, as shown by these cases, have
frequently been used as reasoning for the court’s decisions. This means that
the court recognizes many of the rights included in the due process clause and
will hesitate to change them in the future. For example, a more controversial
right like the right to bear arms, may be kept as a part of the law because it
is included in the due process clause. The argument provided by the 14th
amendment supplies a stronger basis to keep controversial rights like the 2nd
amendment in the future.
Chauncy Wadsworth as a Freshman
Works Cited
"Gideon v. Wainwright." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155. Accessed 23 Jun. 2019.
"McDonald v. Chicago." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2009/08-1521. Accessed 24 Jun. 2019.
- LII Staff. “Due Process.” Legal Information Institute, Legal Information Institute, 26 June 2017, www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process. “These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures.”
“Citizens United: Affirming Government Can't Ban Speech.” Institute For Free Speech, 1 Jan. 2018, www.ifs.org/blog/citizens-united/?gclid=Cj0KCQjw6cHoBRDdARIsADiTTza5CRi6yIDRDZe8GZSxSn6ZvJmCD49R7PIAy3A-I0fLXIycT44JafUaAkaBEALw_wcB.
Comments
Post a Comment