The Supreme Court has a major impact on our country and the way we live our lives. One of the federal government’s three branches, the Supreme Court consists of eight justices and one Chief Justice, whose role is to choose which cases will be reviewed and who will write the majority opinion. Candidates for the Court are nominated by the President and then must be reviewed and voted in by the US Senate. If chosen, unless they choose to resign or retire, they are appointed for life, which gives them immense power. The Supreme Court plays a major part in making sure each branch of the government knows the limits of its powers. The Supreme Court protects people’s civil rights and liberties by reviewing laws to see if they violate the Constitution. Once the Supreme Court makes a decision, its ruling cannot be appealed, like a lower court's ruling can. Therefore the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and, for someone seeking justice, the last resort.
Engel v. Vitale was a supreme court case in which it was ruled that a voluntary prayer at the start of the school day in New York public schools violated the US Constitution’s First Amendment. The New York State’s Board of Regents wrote and put in place a voluntary nondenominational prayer to be said by students in the morning before classes. This prayer stated “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country.” Shortly after this, objecting to the prayer, a group of parents including Steven Engel sued the school’s president William Vitale. The school argued in court that the prayer was constitutional because it promoted the right to exercise religion which is protected under the First Amendment. This was upheld by the New York’s courts which prompted Engel, backed by the American Ethical Union and American Jewish Committee, to go to the US Supreme Court. Oral arguments took place on April 3rd, 1962 and the Supreme Court’s final decision was made on June 25th of the same year. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for school officials to support and show preference to a certain religion and promote it in public schools. The prayer, the court said, violates the First Amendment’s prohibition of state establishment of religion. The Supreme Court ruled this with a margin of six to one. In his opinion, Justice Douglass argued that a state school has no business drafting prayers. Justice Stewart opposed this, arguing that because no official religion was associated with this prayer that it was protected under the US Constitution. The political status of this court is seen as liberal because the court was open to the idea of different religions within the state, and allowed for the freedom of religion or lack thereof. Under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, laws that support state-sponsored religion are prohibited because they infringe on citizens' right to freedom of religion. This is why Engel v. Vitale ties to the First Amendment: the ruling held that prayer in school violated the Establishment clause of the Constitution. Neither the state nor the federal government can set up a church or create laws that aid a religion or prefer one religion over another. By the school putting in place a prayer, it was essentially creating a “church” or religious building, favoring one religion. In today’s public schools, it is permissible for students to be taught about religion under the Constitution, but because of Engel v. Vitale, staff and students are not allowed to take off school for religious observance, practice religion on school grounds, and staff cannot promote a specific religion. In conclusion, Engel v. Vitale was ruled unconstitutional because under the First Amendment, the state is not allowed to sponsor religion, or institute religious activity in state-run schools.
The United States v. Lopez was brought before the US Supreme Court on April 26th, 1995. The story started in March of 1992 in San Antonio, Texas when Alfonso Lopez, a 12th grade student, brought a concealed 0.38 calibre handgun and five bullets to school. School officials received an anonymous tip and confronted Lopez who confirmed that he did have a gun. Lopez was then charged with breaking a Texas statute prohibiting carrying a firearm on school grounds. The state charges against him were dropped quickly, however, in order to charge him with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. The maximum penalty for this was 5 years in prison. Lopez pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers tried to dismiss the charges on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its authority by creating the Act. A federal district court dismissed this by saying that it was within Congress’s powers to regulate activities that have to do with in-state and interstate commerce and the business of public schools. Lopez waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted to six months in prison and two years of supervised release. He then appealed his conviction to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It ruled that the Gun Free School Zones Act was invalid because it went beyond the powers of Congress under the Commerce Clause. The case then went to the US Supreme Court who affirmed the order of the Fifth Circuit Court. The Chief Justice on the case, William Rehnquist, said that the Gun Free School Zones Act was neither a regulation of interstate commerce nor an attempt to prohibit interstate commerce. He also said that if the Act were to withstand judicial scrutiny that it would substantially have to affect interstate commerce. The government had argued that a gun in a school zone could potentially result in an act of horrific violent crime and claimed that the cost of insurance surrounding crimes like these affects the economy. In addition, they said that the economy is affected when individuals refuse to travel to areas they believe are unsafe, and that guns in schools can have a serious effect on the learning environment. The court however rejected these claims on the basis that under the Gun Free School Zone’s terms, Lopez bringing a gun into a school had nothing to do with interstate commerce or economic activity. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Fifth Circuit court and struck down the Act as an impermissible act of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and Alfonso Lopez was released. The Supreme Court at the time of this case was a pretty balanced court, with four liberal justices, three conservative, and two swings. Chief Justice Rehnquist was a very strong conservative. He thought that if Congress could control something that really had nothing to do with commerce, then the government could control anything. Justice Breyer, who wrote the dissent, argued for a significant connection between guns in schools and interstate commerce, and the decision was close; the vote was 5:4. The case was a landmark because it held Congress accountable for exceeding its powers. It is related to the Second Amendment, which allows US citizens to bear arms, and the ongoing issues of gun control. Since the Act was rewritten, there have been more than 294 school shootings. The current Act still cannot stop people from bringing guns into school zones.
Citizens United v. FEC came to light in 2008 when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, released the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was extremely critical of current senator and candidate for the 2008 Democratic nomination for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Citizens United wanted to distribute the movie to people through cable TV thirty days before the start of the primary elections. However, the BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) had expanded the FECA’s (Federal Employees Compensation Act) ban on corporate and union connections with political elections to include “electioneering communications” paid for with corporate or union general treasury funds. This meant anything on any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a specific candidate for a federal office position and is made within sixty days before a general election, or thirty days before a primary election. But the FECA ban does not prohibit corporations or unions from expressing advocacy by means of political action committees, which are funded through the contributions of willing individuals. Citizens United sought an injunction against the FEC, arguing that section 203 of the BRCA was unconstitutional, but the US District Court in Washington denied the injunction, stating that section 203 was unconstitutional because the movie Hillary did not fit the laws definition of electioneering communication and it did not express advocacy for a certain party. Eventually the Supreme Court decided to reevaluate the lower court’s decision, and it came to a conclusion, with a margin of 5:4, that overruled earlier verdicts in similar cases relating to the FEC (McConnell v. FEC and Austin v. The Michigan Chamber of Commerce). The majority opinion in this case was that the First Amendment protects the right to freedom of speech, even on behalf of a corporation. Freedom of speech is also protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The decision meant that the government cannot take away the film corporation’s right to freedom of speech, or freedom of the press. The Chief Justice in this case was Justice Roberts and he was conservative. The political makeup of the court at this time was fairly balanced, with four conservatives, four liberals, and one swing. Chief Justice Roberts delegated the majority opinion to Justice Kennedy, who wrote, “Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to be neither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judgment on these points but decide to think more about issues and candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make.” There are still major issues with money in the election process today. A major corporation will most likely have way more funds than one individual. And if this company backs a specific candidate, and it is a huge company, possibly a company that has a monopoly, this candidate if they get elected they may not go after this monopoly because they supported them during their campaigning. A candidate with more money for their campaigning process is able to create more ads, or ways of campaigning then someone with less money, therefore influencing the probability of them getting elected. In conclusion, money and media publicity surrounding elections can have a major influence on an election’s outcome, but the US Constitution legally protects people and corporations’ political speech.
The Supreme Court is a crucial part of the US government, and is one of the highest forms of authority in the United States. The ruling of the court is final and cannot be appealed. The Supreme Court is used to check the legislative and executive branches of the government to make sure they do not contradict The Constitution. And yet the intricate cases that come before the Supreme Court often show the contradictions within the Constitution and its amendments.
Sources Cited
Berg-Andersson, Richard E. “Justices of the United States Supreme Court.” United States Supreme Court Justices (by Term of Court), www.thegreenpapers.com/Hx/JusticesUSSC.html.
Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Chief Justice.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/topic/chief-justice-of-the-Supreme-Court-of-the-United-States.
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205. Accessed 18 Aug. 2019.
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).” Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963051.
“Engel v. Vitale.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468. Accessed 21 Aug. 2019.
“Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale.
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).” Justia Law, supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/558/310/#tab-opinion-1963051.
“Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale.” United States Courts, www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-engel-v-vitale.
Comments
Post a Comment