All of the most important national cases go to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court makes an official decision about controversies in our country in order to ensure Americans equal justice under the law. The cases Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). all changed the way our society functions today. Whether it is national cases related to prayer in school, guns in schools or even electioneering communications, these cases impact the way we live.
In the 1962 case of Engel v. Vitale, New York schools encouraged teachers to lead students in a nonreligious prayer. Steven Engel, the father of a New York school student, challenged the schools for forcing prayer on students because he thought it violated the First Amendment. The disposition of the court was 6 to 1 in favor of Steven Engel. The liberal court decided that prayer in school went against the Freedom of Speech clause in the First Amendment. The fact that 6 out of the 7 voting Justices were opposed to prayer in school shows that the court was very liberal at that time. Chief Justice Warren voted in favor of Engel along with the majority. This case originated in a New York State Court because New York schools were involved. The New York parent did not want his child to be forced to pray during school. The First Amendment includes freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. The case relates to the First Amendment because Engel believed that prayer does not honor a separation of church and state. In this case, the school was conducting non-denominational prayers, but the court still felt that it was not permitted under the law. This case can be related to the 1963 case of Abington School District v. Schempp. In this case, there was school-sponsored Bible reading before class and that act was found unconstitutional, too.
In the 1995 case of U.S. v. Lopez, Alfonso Lopez went to his high school in San Antonio, Texas with a concealed weapon. He was arrested because he was violating a Texas law that said firearms were not allowed on school grounds. He was charged in a court in Texas but then he was, also, charged federally for breaking the Gun-Free Schools Act. The federal court gave Lopez 6 months in prison and 2 years of probation. Lopez appealed the federal court’s decision. The case moved on to the Supreme Court. Lopez did not argue with the fact that he had a gun on school grounds. He did argue that he should not have been charged federally, because the schools are under state jurisdiction. There was a 5-4 decision favoring Lopez, and the Supreme Court said that the 1990 Gun-Free Zones School Act was overreaching federal powers. The Supreme Court that heard the case was consevative. The role of Chief Justice Rehnquist was crucial. It was a very close case, and he decided the verdict. In this situation, the 10th Amendment was violated, because the Gun-Free Schools Act gave too much power to the federal government in a state issue. In a related case (with the opposite outcome) of federal rights vs states rights, Wickard v. Filburn, an Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed his animals. The government had limits on the amount of wheat he could grow. He made more than that amount and had to pay a fee. He refused to pay, and the case ended up in the Supreme Court where it was decided that the federal government should have more power over states.
The 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a Supreme Court case about campaign finance. It included limitations on corporate, union and federal employees involvement in funding. In 1971, Congress further restricted funding by passing the Federal Elections Campaign Act which made regulations about how much money corporations could donate and required candidates to share their campaign contributions publicly. In the 2008 Obama v. Clinton election, Citizens United, a non-profit organization which gets money from private individuals, made a film that was critical of Hillary Clinton. The film which cost $1,000,000 could be called electioneering communications. The FEC said that this type of campaign communication was not allowed and took Citizens United to court. Citizens United said that the restrictions on funding and electioneering communications were a violation of the Freedom of Speech. In a 5 to 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the McCain-Feingold Act which restricted company involvement in elections was unconstitutional and a violation of the Freedom of Speech. The court was moderate because there was a balance of conservative and liberal justices and the Chief Justice was John G. Roberts. Chief Justice Roberts had an important role in the final decision, because he was the determining vote. This case was heard only by the Supreme Court, because one of the parties was the federal government. The FEC thought what Citizens United did was illegal. This court case falls under the First Amendment, because these advertisements for candidates are an expression of free speech. This case is similar to the 2002 Supreme Court case of McConnell v. FEC. However, this case upheld the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold Act. The McCain-Feingold Act was partially overruled by the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case.
The courts have an important role in our government as one of our three branches of government. The role of the Judicial Branch is to determine if our laws are constitutional. These three SCOTUS cases are examples of how the courts can maintain, eliminate or modify our laws. Assessing and commenting on our nation’s laws is a critical check on the Legislative and Executive Branches.
Works Cited
Anderson, Jon E. “United States v. Lopez.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/United-States-v-Lopez.
Jones, Clifford A. “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/Bipartisan-Campaign-Reform-Act.
United States Courts. “Similar Cases - Engel v. Vitale.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/similar-cases-engel-v-vitale.
“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/united-states-v-lopez.
United States Courts. “Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale.
“US v. Lopez (1995).” Khan Academy, Khan Academy, www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-us-government-and-politics/foundations-of-american-democracy/constitutional-interpretations-of-federalism/a/us-v-lopez-1995.
Comments
Post a Comment