AP Government and Politics
Period 1 Feeley
8/15/19
Since 1789, the Supreme Court has functioned as the last resort tribunal. The Court is composed of one chief justice and eight associate judges who are the final decision makers to a court appeal dealing with the interpretation of the constitution. Their job is to deem the outcome to a controversial court case. Throughout history, many of the cases that have been brought to the Supreme Court have related to religion, gun, and speech rights. Cases such as Engle v. Vitale, US v. Lopez, and Citizens United v. FEC are some of the most significant SCOTUS cases because their outcomes have shaped how our society in America functions now.
In 1962, a New York state law required public school children to start each day of school by reciting a voluntary prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Oyez 1). A group of parents, run by Steven Engel, joined forces to challenge the law, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. After a failed petition the case known as Engel v. Vitale was sent to the New York State Supreme Court. However, the judges sided with the defendants because participating in the prayer was optional. That same decision was then affirmed by the New York Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals. Ultimately, Engle v. Vitale was reviewed by the Supreme Court in which the judges ruled (6-1) in favor of Engel, deciding that the prayer did violate the Establishment Clause. The Majority, via Hugo Black, was liberal which was reflected in their liberal verdict. Chief Justice Earl Warren voted alongside the five other justices for Engel’s side. However, their decision did not outlaw all prayer in public school. Rather it prohibits schools from writing or choosing a specific prayer and requiring all students to say it (Darko 1).
In addition, the case U.S v. Lopez was brought to the Supreme Court in 1994. This landmark SCOTUS case concerned the amount of power Congress had over interstate commerce. This case all started in 1992 when high school senior Alfonso Lopez walked into his San Antonio high school carrying a concealed weapon. He was charged with violating a Texas law that banned firearms in schools called the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (Khan Academy). Even though he was found guilty, his lawyers challenged the ruling by debating whether the Federal government had the right to regulate guns. However, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution under the Commerce Clause states, “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with Indian Tribes.” Lopez argued that the connection to interstate commerce and firearms in schools were not related, hence unconstitutional. His case first went to a federal district court, which denied his motion to dismiss the charges. Lopez appealed his conviction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals before his case was argued in front of the Supreme Court in 1994. At this point in time, the Supreme Court was considered conservative. The judges ruled (5–4) that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional because the U.S. Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. Chief Justice William Rehnquist voted in favor of Lopez because the GFSZA was neither a regulation of the channels of interstate commerce nor an attempt to prohibit interstate transportation of a commodity through those channels (Britannica 1). This ruling was significant because it was the first time in decades that Congress had lost power over interstate commerce.Lastly, in 2010, five members of the Supreme Court determined that it’s unconstitutional to put any limits on how much money corporations can spend influencing elections by paying for ads and other political tools. The SCOTUS case called Citizens United v. FEC dealt with the first amendment, specifically free speech. The founding fathers intended the first amendment to protect the free speech of people, but this ruling rides on the argument that corporations should be treated and should receive the same rights that real people get. This case arose in 2008 when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, wanted to release their documentary “Hillary: The Movie”, which was highly critical of the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. This movie was set to air on cable TV 30 days prior to the primary election. Yet, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) prevented this release “as a means of preventing corporations from ‘distorting’ the political process and to reduce corruption or the appearance of corruption” (Duignan 1). Citizens United sought an injunction in the U.S. District Court in Washington D.C, however, the court ruled against them on all counts. Afterward, the case proceeded to the Supreme Court. In a controversial (5-4) decision, the Court voted in favor of Citizens United. The court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that Section 441(b) was unconstitutional. Their new ruling overturned Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which allowed different restrictions on speech-related spending based on corporate identity, as well as a portion of McConnell v. FEC (2003) that had restricted corporate spending on electioneering communications. Chief Justice John Roberts voted for Citizens United, being apart of the majority opinion and wrote the initial opinion of the Court. But, the other justices convinced Roberts to let Justice Kennedy write the majority opinion because in his draft he explained how the court could and should have gone much further. At this time the court was conservative-leaning. Many people still debate how much influence powerful corporations should have in politics, making this SCOTUS case very disputed among politicians and citizens.
All three of these SCOTUS cases have left a great impact on our society today. Engel v. Vitale prohibits public schools from leading mandatory prayers under the first amendment which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” (U.S. Const. Amend I). However, there is still a religious presence in schools today. Like most American students, I grew up reciting the pledge of allegiance in public school saying the phrase “under God”. We never had a specific religious class or talked about the meaning of the Pledge, but it was apart of our daily routine and I never once questioned participating or objecting to singing the song. However, many concerned parents have found the Pledge unconstitutional. In 2010, a challenge to the Pledge was denied by two federal appeals courts which ruled “that the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause because Congress’s predominant purpose was to inspire patriotism” and “both the choice to engage in the recitation of the Pledge and the choice not to do so are entirely voluntary” (Bomboy 1). Furthermore, the case U.S v Lopez was a landmarking SCOTUS case because the decision marked the first time the Supreme Court had restricted the Federal government’s power to regulate interstate commerce in several decades. While this case does not relate to a specific amendment, the Commerce Clause has been used for years as a way of giving Congress control over buying and selling products around the nation and in the world. In 2005, the case Gonzales v. Raich was sent to the Supreme Court in which they ruled that it is constitutional to criminalize the production and use of homegrown cannabis even if state law allows its use for medicinal purposes. In this decision, Congress gained more power of interstate commerce, yet in U.S v Lopez congress relinquished control, hence becoming a monumental SCOTUS case. Moreover, the case United Citizens v. FEC was a historic SCOTUS case because the ruling gives corporations more power to control politics. Dealing with the First Amendment, the Supreme Court majority treated corporations as real people, giving them the right to freedom of speech. This allows them to spend as much money as they want, whenever they want to intimidate or crush candidates running a platform against their interests and support candidates who will do what they ask. A real issue today is that social-welfare nonprofits aka “dark money” groups don’t have to disclose their political contributions to the FEC like super Political Action Committees (PACS) do. During the 2010 election cycle, 59 social-welfare groups reported spending more than $78.6 million on political ads. Yet, it is still unknown where the money came from (ProPublica 1). This loophole allows people and companies to anonymous fund political parties without ever being traced back to them. Corporation’s involvement in politics is a highly debated topic that many people argue is either good for the economy or bad for democracy depending on your stance.
Works Cited
Anderson, Jon E.
“United States v. Lopez.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia
Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-v-Lopez.
“Engel v. Vitale.” PBS,
Public Broadcasting Service,
www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/engel-v-vitale/.
“Facts and Case
Summary - Engel v. Vitale.” United States Courts,
www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale.
“The History of Legal
Challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance.” National Constitution Center –
Constitutioncenter.org,
constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-latest-controversy-about-under-god-in-the-pledge-of-allegiance.
“United States v.
Lopez.” Khan Academy, Khan Academy,
www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-foundations/us-gov-constitutional-interpretations-of-federalism/v/unites-states-v-lopez.
Comments
Post a Comment