One of the greatest factors in how we interpret and act upon our laws is the Supreme Court. The Court uses its power to monitor the role of government in the lives of the citizens, but this monitoring can mean different things. In fact, the Court’s decisions are more liberal or conservative based on the stance of the majority of the judges. Examples of the court monitoring government are shown in three Supreme Court cases: Engel v. Vitale, U.S v. Lopez, and FEC v. Citizens United.
One case involving the monitoring of government is the case of Engel v. Vitale, which debated the right to pray in a public school. In the 1950’s, students in New Hyde Park were praying a nondenominational prayer every morning (Britannica, 2019). A group of parents sued the school board in New York District Court, and then the New York Court of Appeals. It eventually found its way up to the Supreme Court (Kent College, 2017) where it was debated in the Warren Court, a traditionally liberal court. While two judges abstained, the court voted six to one in favor of ending school-issued prayer. Chief Justice Earl Warren voted in the majority, while Hugo Black delivered the majority opinion (Britannica, 2019). This decision relates to the First Amendment, because Vitale (the School Board’s lawyer) argued that freedom of speech made the prayer legal. A stronger argument is the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from favoring one religion. The Court was monitoring the government, because in this case schools needed to be checked when they were abusing the Establishment Clause. This was also a more liberal decision from a more liberal court.
Another case involving the monitoring of government is U.S v. Lopez. In this case, a high school boy (Alfonso Lopez) brought a concealed weapon into school. He was charged with possession of a firearm as a felony under Texas law. Days later, the charges were dropped and he was charged with violating the Gun-Free-School Zone Act instead which was a federal offense with harsher penalties. The state justified this change under the Commerce Clause saying that guns near schools ripple out negatively impact the economy (Cornell, no date). Lopez and his lawyer argued the State overstepped its limits in its use of the Commerce Clause for justification of said offense. They took it through the Texas courts, and it eventually made its way into the court of Chief Justice Rehnquist, who ran a consertative court, and voted in majority of the case. The Court voted 5-4 in favor of Lopez (Oyez project,No date). This case involves the Second Amendment and shows that the right to bear arms continues to be a shield for gun owners. Not only does this case have to do with guns, it also has to do with the way the state uses congressional legislation to justify their own intentions. The state cannot stretch one piece of legislation to cover many different issues. This is another case of how the Supreme Court monitors government. This time monitoring the role of government was used more conservatively because it was a more conservative court.
The final case of the Supreme Court monitoring government is FEC v. Citizens United. A non-profit organization (Citizens United) wanted to run a documentary on cable television about presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that was highly critical of her. This violated Section 203 of the McCain-Feingold Act that prohibited electioneering. Citizens United knew that the FEC would challenge their documentary, so they took it to a District Court in Washington D.C, arguing that Section 203 was unconstitutional because the film was not a clear representation of campaign financing and disallowing it was a breach of the freedom of speech. The Washington D.C. District Court denied the injunction of Citizens United, so they took it to the Supreme Court (Oyez Project, No Date). The court sided with Citizens United on a vote of 5-4. They ruled that Section 203 was unconstitutional in regards to Hillary because it was made with independent finances and that by disallowing the film, the FEC breached the First Amendment. Chief Justice Roberts voted with the majority and delivered the statement of the Court's decision. Robert’s court is traditionally more conservative than the previous court of Judge Rehnquist.This finding relates to the First Amendment, because in the eyes of many, this is a battle of freedom of speech, and voting in favor of Citizens United was a victory for it. But in reality, the Supreme Court overlooked the impact of the decision they made. By applying the First Amendment to corporations, the Court created a way for corporations to have the most influence because of the amount of money they have. This form of electioneering is a very large problem because then democracy is in the hands of the people with the most money, and not the people it intends to represent. This relates to the way government is monitored because the Supreme Court voted that the FEC’s prohibiting of electioneering went too far. Once again the political leaning of the court had influence in the way the court decided, resulting in a more conservative decision.
In conclusion, one of the Supreme Court’s primary functions is to monitor the role of government in the lives of citizens, and we see that through the cases of Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (5th cir.1995), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). This is a necessary function in our political system, but the question remains: do the political leanings of the court have too great an influence in the way that government is monitored?
Comments
Post a Comment