Drew Patterson

Drew Patterson

AP US Government

Summer Assignment

9/1/19

Gideon V. Wainright 372 US 335 (1963)

The case of Gideon V. Wainright raised the question of whether or not having a proper counsel was required. The defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor in Florida. The issue in the case came up when Gideon was forced to represent himself since he could not afford an attorney. When Gideon appealed to the judge for a counsel he was denied because of Florida law at the time. After Gideon was convicted in order to get relief from his sentence he argued that it was against his constitutional right for the judge to deny him, counsel. In the end, Gideon was right and it was ruled that it was unconstitutional to deny someone legal counsel when going up against the state. This is why on March 18th, 1963 the supreme court ruled that states are required to provide legal counsel to indigent defendants charged with a felony. 

Gideon first appealed by filing a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in Florida Supreme court claiming that it was unconstitutional to deny him, Counsel. While the petition was denied by the Florida supreme court when he later appealed to the United States supreme court it was taken up. The court wanted to decide whether the right to counsel under the sixth amendment held up when facing state courts. The reason that the Florida court denied Gideon, counsel, was because under Florida law they’re only allowed to appoint counsel to a poor defendant charged with capital defense. The sixth amendment basically states the accused has the right to a speedy and public trial and includes the rights to, understand the crimes accused, have witnesses against and for them, and assistance for counsel in their defense. The last part is what was an issue in the Gideon V. Wainright case. While this is a required part of the sixth amendment some states, (Florida), created laws to prevent this right. This underlying issue, in this case, is one that the U.S has been dealing with since the beginning of our country. A balance between the powers of federal and state. While the sixth amendment called for counsel, the state, Florida, had laws in place that didn't allow this right to be fulfilled.

Tinker V. DMISCD 393 US 503 (1969)

In the case of Tinker V. Desmoine, a group of students decided to have a peaceful protest against the Vietnam war.  They planned to wear black armbands and fast on certain dates, but the school punished them for doing this. The parents of these students immediately recognized the violation of the students first amendment right. They took the case first to the school districts court and was denied and then confirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. When the case was brought to the supreme court they recognized the violation of the students first amendment rights stating that the students do not give up their rights when they step onto campus. The justices who decided the case did recognize the limits on the first amendment right. Justice Potter Stewart wrote that children are not necessarily guaranteed the full extent of First Amendment rights, while Justice Hugo L. Black stated that the first amendment doesn't allow you to say anything or anytime. This really questioned what the first amendment was meant to allow. Overtimes in the past this part of the first amendment has always been questioned because it protects the people against authority or even sometimes the government. That is why the first amendment was put in place and the amendments in general to protect the people and their rights against any government or authority. This case relates to the present and past when young people have tried to protest during school. During the '60s with the civil rights movement and today with the gun violence protests. Today the response to student protest is varied, for example at ETHS the gun violence walkout was supported by the school while others threatened suspension for participation. This is why this case is an important reminder that the right to protest and freedom of speech extends to everyone on or off-campus.

Roe V. Wade 410 US 113 (1973)

In 1970 Jane Roe (a pseudonym to protect privacy), filed a lawsuit against Dallas County Texas district attorney Henry Wade. The lawsuit was over Texas's new law that made abortions illegal unless doctors say it is necessary to save the mother. Roe argued that the law was a violation of a series of rights the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments. When the case reached court it was a decision of whether or not the case was moot. Moot means that the case would be debatable. Then they decided on the case primarily studying the fourteenth amendment. The fourteenth amendment is the right to privacy which in this case could extend to a women's choice to decide what happens to her body privately. If the state is intervening with that decision then they are violating that right to privacy. This is how the court came to the conclusion to dismiss the Texas law that made abortions illegal which made them legal across the U.S. The case originated in Texas district court where they decided that the Texas law violated the right to privacy. Although it was ruled legal Wade continued to prosecute doctors who performed abortions which made it basically illegal again. Once the law reached the Supreme court the same ruling was reached and abortions were made legal nationwide. The main amendment that was judged in this case was the fourteenth amendment which basically protects the right to privacy. The purpose of this amendment is to protect the people from having every aspect of their life controlled by government and law, much like the other amendments. This ruling is a good representation of that because the law was taking control over pregnancy a private part of a woman's life and in the end, the amendment protected that. The case is very prevalent in politics today because of the debate about abortions has never ended. This debate today has extended to all questions for a women's right to control her body. While we have the option for planned parenthood today the right to birth control and abortions is constantly questioned by society. The question is the same as in Roe V. Wade, is it within a woman's privacy to get an abortion or control her pregnancy. While the court decided it in the 70's the debate still rages on.