The case of McCulloch vs Maryland began in 1816, when the congress chartered The Second Bank of America. Two years later the state of Maryland imposed a tax upon the bank. However, McCulloch, a cashier at a branch of the bank refused to pay the tax. The first court to see this case was the Court of Maryland. This court convicted McCulloch, although it wasn't until after his conviction that the Supreme Court became involved. In a unanimous decision for McCulloch, it was decided that the State could not apply tax to “instruments of the national government in the execution of constitutional powers”. Chief Justice John Marshall partook in making the final decision, by voting alongside eight other supreme court justices. The framers’ intent of this case is to insure that the national government has more authority than that of the states. The Justices recognized this as they came to their decision.
The case of New York Times Co vs U.S. first began when the company decided to use information sourced from illegally leaked documents, in a print of their newspaper. The documents contained information regarding the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. The court ruled 6-3 in New York Times Co vs U.S.. It was concluded that the prior restraint by the U.S. had been unconstitutional, and restricted the publishers of their First Amendment. The court involved in this case was the Burger Court. The chief justice Warren E. Burger, was one of the most liberal judges in Supreme Court history, making for a liberal court in the New York Times Co. vs United States trial. In his court he acted as the authority in all discussions, including those in the New York vs U.S. case. The case first originated in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The 1st Amendment is the most involved in the case, and most closely related to it. The reason for this is because the case concluded in favor of New York Times Co. due to their first amendment, which also involves the freedom of the press.
Citizens United vs FEC began in 2008 when Citizens United released the documentary, Hillary: The Movie. The film produced by the conservative nonprofit organization, portrade a bad image of the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and it would air just 30 days before the 2008 primary election. However, in 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or BCRA. This act prohibited corporations or labor unions from using their general treasuries to fund “electioneering communications”. This included all TV, satellite, and radio which referred to presidential candidates within 60 days of the general election, within 30 of primary elections. The first court to see this case was the United States District Court. There, Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Campaign Act, in order to prevent application of BCRA to their film, which was later denied. This is when the Supreme Court of the United States got involved. In the final ruling of 5-4, Citizens United faced victory, as it was seen as unconstitutional to deny the corporation freedom of speech. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, along with a majority conservative court voted to decide the final ruling. This case is an example of how freedom of speech does not only apply to individuals but to corporations as well.
In all of these cases there was a conflict that was resolved with the help of the Supreme Court of the United States, but more importantly the justices of each court involved. Although these cases were resolved, conflict surrounding the amendments involved still lives in our society today. In both New York Times Co. vs U.S., and Citizens United vs FEC, the justices came to their decision by deciding whether freedom of speech was being granted. Currently, the right to freedom of speech is being overused. Now, people use the first amendment to defend hate speech, when its original intent was for people to voice their opinions freely. In McCulloch vs Maryland, the justices turned to the Constitution once again and confirmed that the national government had more power than the government of a state. In the present, the conservative party desires a country with a less centralized government. Their goal is for more state authority over the laws in place, and therefore what goes on within them. And just like before, many cases revolving around these issues will rise before the justices of the supreme court. And again they will have to make the decision which will determine how the amendment is interpreted until a different one is made.
Works Cited
"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205. Accessed 20 Aug. 2019.
Duignan, Brian. “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc., 27 June 2019, www.britannica.com/event/Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission.
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.
"John G. Roberts, Jr." Oyez, www.oyez.org/justices/john_g_roberts_jr. Accessed 20 Aug.
2019.
"John Marshall." Oyez, www.oyez.org/justices/john_marshall. Accessed 20 Aug. 2019.
Martin, Myles. “Citizens United v. FEC (Supreme Court).” FEC.gov, 1 Feb. 2010, www.fec.gov/updates/citizens-united-v-fecsupreme-court/.
"McCulloch v. Maryland." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/17us316. Accessed 20 Aug. 2019.
"New York Times Company v. United States." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1970/1873. Accessed 12 Aug. 2019.
"Warren E. Burger." Oyez, www.oyez.org/justices/warren_e_burger. Accessed 20 Aug. 2019.
Comments
Post a Comment