Children reciting a prayer in school under supervision
(Engel et al. v Vitale et al.)
Engel et al. v Vitale et al.:
Engel et al. v Vitale et al.:
The case Engel v Vitale, took place in the New York public schools when the New York Board of Regents recommended a voluntary, denominationally neutral prayer recitation in each public school class in the presence of a teacher. The Board of Education of New Hyde Park, New York, then adopted the recitation of the prayer which lead to parents of several students to claim that the reciting of the prayer was unconstitutional on the grounds that it violated their child’s First Amendment right; which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Both the trial court, Engel v. Vitale, 191 N.Y.S. 2d 453 (1959) and the New York Court of Appeals, Engel v. Vitale, 176 N.E. 2d 579 (1960) sided against the petitioners, and allowed the schools to continue the prayer, as long as the recitation of the prayer remained completely voluntary. The petitioners appealed the Court of Appeals’ decision which lead the case to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari meaning they agreed to hear and try the case.
The Supreme Court Justices that were involved with the decision were: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, and White. Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan were viewed as the liberal Justices. Justice Black started as a liberal judge but then became more conservative. Justice Frankfurter and Justice Harlan were viewed as conservative judges and Justice Douglas tended to vote with how Justice Black voted. Lastly, Justice Clark, Justice Stewart, and Justice White were considered the swing votes. At the time of Engel v Vitale, this court was viewed as split between being a liberal and conservative court, but the Court in the 6-1 decision ruled in favor of the petitioners with Justice Stewart being the only dissenting vote in the ruling. Justices Frankfurter and White did not participate in the decision while Chief Justice Warren voted with the majority, and Justice Douglas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Black wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court stating, “state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in public schools, even though the prayer may be nondenominational and recitation is voluntary.” Engel et al. v. Vitale et al, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
The case of Engel v Vitale rested on the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (“Establishment Clause”). The Fourteenth Amendment also played an important role in this case because the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment along with all amendments applicable to the states. The Supreme Court then based its opinion on its interpretation and applicability of the First Amendment. The Court found that by encouraging the recitation of the prayer, the State of New York adopted a practice that was entirely inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.
In conclusion, this case and the Establishment Clause are still relevant today, as shown in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). In said case, students of the high school wanted to recite a prayer to athletes and spectators before every varsity home football game over the school loudspeaker. Parents of some students filed a lawsuit claiming on the prayer recitation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment rights. With a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with the parents that a prayer over the school’s loudspeaker, at a school-sponsored event, under school faculty supervision was a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The Supreme Court Justices that were involved with the decision were: Chief Justice Warren and Justices Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Clark, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, and White. Chief Justice Warren and Justice Brennan were viewed as the liberal Justices. Justice Black started as a liberal judge but then became more conservative. Justice Frankfurter and Justice Harlan were viewed as conservative judges and Justice Douglas tended to vote with how Justice Black voted. Lastly, Justice Clark, Justice Stewart, and Justice White were considered the swing votes. At the time of Engel v Vitale, this court was viewed as split between being a liberal and conservative court, but the Court in the 6-1 decision ruled in favor of the petitioners with Justice Stewart being the only dissenting vote in the ruling. Justices Frankfurter and White did not participate in the decision while Chief Justice Warren voted with the majority, and Justice Douglas wrote a concurring opinion. Justice Black wrote the opinion for the Supreme Court stating, “state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in public schools, even though the prayer may be nondenominational and recitation is voluntary.” Engel et al. v. Vitale et al, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
The case of Engel v Vitale rested on the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (“Establishment Clause”). The Fourteenth Amendment also played an important role in this case because the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment along with all amendments applicable to the states. The Supreme Court then based its opinion on its interpretation and applicability of the First Amendment. The Court found that by encouraging the recitation of the prayer, the State of New York adopted a practice that was entirely inconsistent with the Establishment Clause.
In conclusion, this case and the Establishment Clause are still relevant today, as shown in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000). In said case, students of the high school wanted to recite a prayer to athletes and spectators before every varsity home football game over the school loudspeaker. Parents of some students filed a lawsuit claiming on the prayer recitation violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment rights. With a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with the parents that a prayer over the school’s loudspeaker, at a school-sponsored event, under school faculty supervision was a violation of the Establishment Clause.
United States v Lopez:
In the case of United States v Lopez, 12th grader Alfonzo Lopez brought a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. Lopez was charged by the state of Texas with firearm possession on school premises. Shortly after, the state dismissed the charges because federal agents charged him with violating the Gun-Free School Zone Act. This act prohibits, “any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows ... is a school zone," 18 U. S. C. § 922(q)(I)(A). Lopez was found guilty of violating the Act. Lopez appealed his conviction, saying that the Act exceeded Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause because schools fell under state jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals agreed with the respondent, and reversed Lopez’s conviction saying, “section 922(q), in the full reach of its terms, is invalid as beyond the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause." 2 F.3d 1342, 1367-1368 (1993). The United States appealed the Court of Appeals decision and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court Justices that were involved were: Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, O’Connor, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg were viewed as liberal Justices. Justice Souter was viewed as a conservative Justice who became a more liberal Justice. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas were viewed as conservative Justices. Justices O’Connor and Kennedy started as voting more conservatively but became more swing voters, along with Justice Breyer. At the time of the Lopez case, the court was viewed as a more conservative court and in the 5-4 decision, the court ruled with Lopez with Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Souter being the dissenting votes. Chief Justice Rehnquist played a large role in the decision because he wrote the opinion for the court. Chief Justice Rehnquist in his opinion said, “The Act neither regulates a commercial activity nor contains a requirement that the possession be connected in any way to interstate commerce. We hold that the Act exceeds the authority of Congress to regulate Commerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Justices Kennedy and O’Connor wrote concurring opinions, while Justices Souter and Breyer wrote the dissenting opinions.
Lopez rested on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution; which states, [Congress shall have power] “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” (Commerce Clause). The Fourteenth Amendment also played an important role in this case because the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court based their decision on the applicability of the Gun-Free Act to the Commerce Clause. The Court decided that the Act has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, therefore sided with Lopez. The case upheld the idea that states have control over local matters.
In conclusion, this case and the Commerce Clause and the 14th Amendment is still relevant today, as shown in United States v Morrison et al., 529 U.S. 598 (2000). In this case, Morrison and Crawford were accused of rape by Brzonkala at Virginia Tech. Brzonkala sued both Crawford, Morrison, and the school after it didn't follow through with the student’s punishments. She sued on the grounds the attack violated part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, 42 U. S. C. § 13981. Morrison’s lawyers moved to dismiss on the grounds section 13981 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court decided that Congress couldn’t enact §13981 under the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment.
Citizens United v FEC:
In the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission 558 U.S. 310 (2010), Citizens United made a critical movie about Hillary Clinton, a candidate in the Democratic Party’s 2008 Presidential primary elections. The movie was released in theaters and on DVD, but Citizens United wanted to make the movie available on video on demand. Citizens United wanted to advertise the video on demand showing by advertising on broadcast and cable television. Citizens United was concerned that the video on demand showing would violate §441b and §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Citizens United filed a preliminary injunction saying that §441b was unconstitutional on the grounds that §441b violated the First Amendment when applied to the movie, Hillary. The District Court denied the preliminary injunction and granted the FEC’s motion for summary judgment 530 F. Supp. 2d 274 (DC 2008). §441b as amended by §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, prohibits companies from using their general treasury funds to directly contribute to candidates that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate through the media or electioneering communication. 2 U. S. C. §441b. The District Court ruled that §441b was constitutional when applied to Hillary because there was no other interpretation then to show that Hillary Clinton is unfit for becoming president and that the viewers should vote against her. The case eventually made it through the Court of Appeals and then to the Supreme Court who then granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court Justices that were involved were: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Alito, Breyer, Sotomayer, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. Justices Stevens, Sototmayer, and Ginsburg were viewed as liberal Justices. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were viewed as conservative Justices. Chief Justice Roberts was also viewed as a conservative Justice, but the Republican Party did not like him because they thought he wasn’t supporting conservative ideals while being a Justice. Kennedy started as voting more conservatively but became more of a swing voter like Justice Breyer. During the time of Citizens United v FEC the court was mostly conservative, and the 5-4 decision was along ideological lines. Chief Justice Roberts didn’t have a major role in this case besides voting with the majority. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor dissenting. Justice Kennedy wrote in the opinion of the court, “By contrast, it is inherent in the nature of the political process that voters must be free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes.”558 U.S. 310 (2010).
The case of Citizens United v FEC rested on the First Amendment that says, “[Congress shall make no law] abridging the freedom of speech” (“Free Speech Clause”). The Fourteenth Amendment also played an important role in this case because the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First Amendment along with all amendments applicable to the states. The Supreme Court based its opinion on its interpretation and applicability of the First Amendment to the case. The Court held that under the First Amendment, corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited.
In conclusion, the case of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is still a relevant issue today because this case freed corporations and unions to spend money on electioneering communications and to directly advocate for the election or defeat of candidates.
Links:
Engel v Vitale:
US v Lopez:
Citizens United v FEC:
Comments
Post a Comment