Shaw V. Reno (Year:1993)

Transcription

1 Shaw V. Reno (Year:1993) A North Carolina Reapportionment agency attempted to use abnormal Gerrymandering to intentionally create a Majority African American district and get an African American representative. 5 people took their disagreement with the Gerrymandering to a district court, and eventually the Supreme Court. The 14 th Amendment Equal protection Clause Racial Gerrymandering Gerrymandering: or the drawing of districts by political leaders or groups in an attempt to highlight their party and to stop from the drowning of people s opinion and voices. Equal Protection Clause: Part of the 14 th amendment that says that everyone shall have equal protection of the laws, from the government and others. 5-4 against Gerrymandering of districts only based off of race. 5 judges The district created exceeded what was reasonable or necessary to avoid racial imbalances. Claimed that the gerrymandering violated the Equal Protection Clause, and ruled that race could not be the predominant factor in creating districts 4 judges The dissenting judges claimed that the appellants were not able to show how this gerrymandering deprives the right to vote or how their own political strength was weakened by this. The judges claimed that the issue was whether or not the case discriminates against anyone, and that they did not see that. Gerrymandering based on Political Party affiliation still occurs as long as it is not trying to silence opinions of contrasting political policies. Allows people to challenge the unfair Gerrymandering of districts. And this case restricts gerrymandering based only on race, and declares it unconstitutional. Raised a question under the Equal Protection Clause in the 14 th Amendment Engel V. Vitale (Year: 1962)

2 New York State law required public schools to begin each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer. In this prayer, students recognized their dependence upon God. Included in the law it was stated that students were allowed to abstain from this prayer if they objected to it. On behalf of their child, a parent sued with the position that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which was made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this argument. First amendment, establishment clause, due process clause, 14th amendment Nondenominational: Open or acceptable to people of any Christian denomination Establishment clause: clause in the first amendment that prohibits the establishment of religion by Congress Due process clause: Clause that deals with the administration of justice and as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the government outside the section of law by the govt Yes (6-1) (In favor of Engel) - Engel v. Vitale, the Court ruled that for public schools to hold official recitation of prayers violated the Establishment Clause. - A quote from Justice Hugo Black: - We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly inconsistent with the Establishment Clause It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government. - in this USA, it isn t part of the business of government to mandate official prayers for any group of Americans to recite as a part of a religious program carried on through the government. - The New York laws officially mandating the Regent's prayer are inconsistent with purposes of Justice Stewart. His main argument was that the establishment clause only prohibited state sponsor of churches from being established and not all of the government involvement with religion. He believed that the fact that the prayer was nondenominational and that there was an option for families to opt out of it, it made the prayer free from constitutional challenges. One of the things he said was that the prayer didn t establish a religion

3 the Establishment Clause and with the Establishment Clause itself. This case was one of the very first that found a variety of religious activities sponsored by the government to violate the Establishment Clause. It also was the first case which prohibited the government from sponsoring and/or endorsing official prayer in schools. Engel v. Vitale was a catalyst for further separation of church and state issues in the second half of the 20th century. McDonald V. Chicago (Year: 2010) Multiple lawsuits were placed against several parks in Illinois in opposition to their gun bans after the supreme court decision made in District of Columbia v. Heller in which the ban was determined a violation of the 2 nd amendment. The court determined that since the law derivated from the federal government the second amendment could be applied. After the plaintiffs argued that the second amendment should apply to the states, the claims were overturned and dismissed. (Missing a couple important details McDonald challenged his city s handgun ban because he said it rendered him without self-defense in his crime-ridden neighborhood and violated the 2 nd Amendment) Second and Fourteenth amendment as well as the jurisdictions of state and federal law. Due Process Privileges and Immunities State vs Federal Law (define these terms) 5-4 Decision for McDonald 2 nd amendment rights are fundamental and deeply rooted in the American tradition. (individual self-defense) Due process supports the second amendment in state jurisdiction. Owning a personal firearm is not a liberty interest. Second Amendment does not state a fundamental right so it cannot be supported with the 14 th amendment. Privilges and Immunities clause is more appropriate over Due Process. (this was a concurring opinion, not

4 dissenting) Bolstered the second amendment rights of gun owners, especially pertaining to concealed weapons in public. (Also significant that the case incorporated the 2 nd Amendment by applying it to the states through the due process clause of the 14 th Amendment) _Wisconsin_ V. _Yoder_ (Year:_1972_) Background: 1 st amendment right to free religion This case is about free exercise of religion involving Amish and Mennonite communities Amish and Mennonite sects of Christianity Beliefs include: - Individualism, competition, and self-promotion separates individuals from each other, God and salvation - Communities should be self-sufficient led to many stopping education after age 14. Conflict arises when states raise the age limit at which children must stay in school (mid-20 th century) Facts: Wisconsin state convicts 3 members of Old Amish and Mennonite communities for violating state education compulsory law Frieda Yoder and two others stopped attending school after 8 th grade Amish community provides their members with alternative education to become law abiding and selfsufficient. Formal education competitive, higher content, removal from daily religious practices danger to salvation Life and religion are closely interrelated and cannot be separated Parents fined 5 dollars in Wisconsin Circuit Court later appeal to state Supreme Court State court reversed fine in favor of Yoder, but sought US Supreme Court review 1 st amendment free exercise clause involving religion 14 th amendment due process clause involving bill of rights Under what condition does the state s interest in promoting compulsory education override parents First Amendment right to free exercise of religion? (from street law) Wisconsin compulsory education law requires students to attend school until 16 years of age Free Exercise Clause government cannot make any law prohibiting free exercise/conducting of religion Unanimous

5 The majority decision stated that the first amendment s right to freedom of religion and the separation of church and state (Establishment Clause) is what allows for the Amish to take their children out of 8 th grade for religious reasons legal. The schools are government organizations so they had no right to keep the Amish children there until they turned 16. Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent, but voted with the court on Yoder s case. The U.S. Supreme Court states they can t force individuals to attend school when it breaks the laws of the first amendment rights....the compulsory attendance law violated their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This is what allowed the case to be taken on in the first place. The idea of a separation of church and state is very important....gravely endanger, if not destroy, the free exercise of respondents religious beliefs. A breach in the idea of separation of religion and state is what made the court s decision unanimous. The school system is not allowed to force children to do anything against their religion or against the religion of their parents. The Wisconsin v. Yoder mostly impacted the Amish. The Supreme Court decided that Amish children aren t required to get an education past the eighth grade. Their parents have the right to freedom of religion. _Roe_ V. _Wade_ (Year:_1973_) Background: Constitution does not explicitly mention right to privacy In previous cases Supreme made decisions based on location home is private 21 st century Supreme begins to interpret 14 th amendment due process clause as a provision for right to protection of privacy This case involves how protection of privacy applies to abortion 19 th and 20 th century many states banned or had strict constraints regarding abortion viewed as morally/religiously wrong

6 Facts: Illegal abortion widespread and dangerous 1960s movement toward legalizing abortion 4 states removed ban brought cases to courts to challenge 1969 Jane Roe (not real name to protect identity) wants an abortion unmarried and pregnant Texan Texas law felony for an abortion unless mother s life is at risk Roe files lawsuit against Henry Wade (district attorney of Dallas, Texas) Federal District Court ruled Texas law unconstitutional by 9 th amendment Case appealed to Supreme Court 9 th amendment involving rights not specifically mentioned in constitution is applied to abortion 14 th amendment due process clause Does constitution protect the right of woman to obtain abortion? (from street law) 4 th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures 5 th amendment Miranda rights right to remain silence and protects against forced self-incrimination 9 th amendment laws not specifically constrained or mentioned in constitution cannot necessarily be denied to the people Author: Justice Blackmun a. The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is that they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. The main point brought up in this paragraph the state of Texas cannot infringe on the rights of women to terminate a pregnancy by the Due Process clause that says no state is allowed to affect the rights of all people. Justice Rehnquist argued that the 14th amendment wasn t intended to protect a right of privacy, a right they didn t recognize, and two not protect the woman s decision to abort their child. Justice Rehnquist said that the issue at hand, required a careful balance of the interest of women against the interest of the state. It was inappropriate for the court to legalize abortion, and should have been handled by the state legislators. b. The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. [T]he Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. According to this part of the majority opinion the people have the right to personal privacy. The idea of privacy comes from either the 9 th amendment, reservation of the rights of the people, or the 14 th amendment s idea of personal liberty and state restrictions. This same

7 paragraph continues by mentioning the woman s right to stop something that may in the end cause her harm. c. On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. The court does not agree that women have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any time, but that they have the right to privacy and to maintain their health. The court gives the right to states to regulate how, and when, abortions can be done. The court also put in specific rules and outlines for the state, mother, and physician to follow. (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. (b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. (c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. The impact of Roe v. Wade allowed abortion nationwide legal. Abortion services became safer and easy access for women in need. Roe v. Wade allowed women to make their own decisions about pregnancy and their right to privacy. _Baker_ V. _Carr_ (Year:_1963_)

8 Many states were reapportioning their districts with little jurisdiction as to how they were drawing their districts. Due to this, Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state s General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker s suit detailed how Tennessee reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state. The case pertained to the checks and balances of different branches of government and in this case the power the judicial branch has over the legislative branch. Political questions, one person, one vote, and equal protection. (define terms) State reapportionment claims are justifiable in federal court. Justice Whittaker had to recuse himself due to health reasons. (6-2) Justices Brennan, Douglas, Clark, and Stewart argued that questions that are political in nature are marked by "Textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department;", "A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it;", "The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion;", "The impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government;", "An unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made;", and "The potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question. Due to these reasons the question of reapportionment by Baker was valid and able to be determined by the judicial branch. Justices Frankfurter and Harlan argued that Appellants invoke the right to vote and to have their votes counted. But they are permitted to vote and their votes are counted. They go to the polls, they cast their ballots, they send their representatives to the state councils. Their complaint is simply that the representatives are not sufficiently numerous or powerful. This opinion was made to prevent the separation of power between the three branches of government being violated. Baker v. Carr changed the type of cases the judicial branch could rule upon. In addition, Baker v. Carr led to states having stricter laws prohibiting the imbalance in the weight of each citizens vote.

9 Tinker V. Des Moines (Year: 1969) In 1965, Christopher Eckhardt held a meeting to support for peace in the Vietnam war. As a result, him and other students, including Mary Beth Tinker and John Tinker, wore black armbands throughout the holiday season. After hearing of the plan to show their support for a truce, the Des Moines school principals created a policy that would suspend any student wearing an armband who refused to remove it. Mary Beth Tinker and John Tinker were both suspended until after New Year s Day as a result of not removing the armbands. Their parents sued the school district for violating their right of expression, but the district court dismissed their case saying that their actions were reasonable to enforce the discipline held at the school. The parents appealed the court until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court where they ruled in favor of the students. The case is connected to the Constitution by the First Amendment, particularly the right to free speech as it pertains to students having this right within a school environment. -Symbolic speech: Conveying an idea or opinion through behavior or action rather than verbally or written protected under the First Amendment as pure speech. -In loco parentis (in the place of a parent): Legal responsibility of a teacher/school to care/supervise students during the school day. -Content neutrality: Speech cannot be limited, rather regulated the circumstances in which thus speech can take place. -Tinker test: Used to determine if the disciplinary actions of school s violate the first amendment rights of students. The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 decision in favor of the students. While schools have the authority to create policies to maintain peace, they do not possess absolute authority over their students [and students] may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. The majority opinion was written by Justice Abe Fortas. Although students should have the right to free speech, the act of wearing the armbands took the students minds off their classwork and diverted them to thoughts about the highly emotional subject of the Vietnam war. As such, it was believed that the protest was disruptive. The dissenting opinion was authored by Justice Hugo L. Black. Tinker v. Des Moines affirmed that the First Amendment protects the rights of students to express their opinions at school despite school opinion so long as they are not disruptive or violent.

10 Gideon V. Wainwright (Year: 1963) Gideon was charged with breaking and entering and was denied a lawyer after requesting one for his trial. He ended up representing himself, possibly causing his sentence of 5 years in prison. He filed a habeas corpus petition to challenge his denied constitutional rights to a lawyer. In the end, the Florida Supreme Court denied his appeal. 6 th Amendment Gideon s trial questioned the extent of the protections provided by this amendment. (14 th Amendment s due process clause also important here for incorporating the right to counsel/applying it to the states fully) -Habeas Corpus: Legal ideal which required a person under arrest to be brought before a court. -Indigent Defendant: A defendant who does not have a sufficient income to afford a lawyer for a court case and is appointed a public defender by the court. The court ruled against Gideon s habeas corpus relief in a unanimous decision. (clarify: they ruled in favor of Gideon) While the 6 th Amendment says that everyone in criminal cases is subject to an attorney, if the right is competently and intelligently waived, the defendants are unable to hire counsel. Since the decision was unanimous, there was no minority opinion. The majority opinion was authored by Justice Hugo L. Black. Gideon v. Wainwright has no significant legal impact but inspired another court case in Argersinger v. Hamlin in 1972 that thereafter required legal counsel for all indignant misdemeanants. (Gideon did have significant legal impact while it did not guarantee that poor people would be provided an attorney in civil cases, it did do this for felony criminal cases at the state level)

11 Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission (Year: 2010) In early 2008, a nonprofit corporation called Citizens United released a documentary expressing opinions of the then-candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination Hillary Clinton. Citizens United used their general treasury funds to help promote the film, which violated the bipartisan campaign reform act (BCRA) prohibiting corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds on electioneering communications that supports or dissuades from a candidate. The BCRA also had rules on what fell under electioneering communications. This includes that the form of communication is made within 30 days of a primary election OR 60 days before a general election and is publicly distributed. As such, Citizens United sued the FEC for violating their first amendment right to freedom of speech when they used their own money, not the opposing candidate or the candidate s committee s money. The case was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court and ultimately decided in favor of Citizens United, granting first amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech, to corporations. CONSTITUTIONAL CONNECTION(S) This case relates to the first amendment right to freedom of speech. Citizens United, who were against McCain-Feingold Act, argued that limiting outside groups from spending their own money advocating against a candidate, in their case, Hillary Clinton, violated the First Amendment. -Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) or the McCain-Feingold Act: A law enacted in 2002 to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act and decrease the role of soft money in campaigns. -Political Action Committees (PACs): Tasked with raising and collecting funds for their candidates and/or parties. -The Federal Election Commission (FEC): A bipartisan agency that regulates campaign finance laws. -Incumbency: A person is already holding an office. This is an advantage to candidates seeking re-election. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United. The majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy stated that the First Amendment did state limits should (not) be placed on corporate funding for independent broadcast in candidate elections. This meant that two previous decisions, in the cases of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC, were reversed so free speech wasn t limited. The court affirmed that corporations have free speech rights and their political speech cannot be restricted any more than that of individuals. The dissenting opinion written by Justice Stevens argued that the First Amendment protects people -not corporations. The dissenters felt that corporate spending could lessen the efforts of non-corporate voices in elections. They further established that limits on corporation spending had been present for almost 100 years to prevent the influence of wealthy corporations in misleading the average voter with one opinion. Dissenters argued that corporations could speak through PACs with the terms listed in the BRCA. The Citizens United Supreme Court case ruling impacted the amount of influence corporations have on elections though financial contributions to support candidates. For almost a century, spending was limited to prevent corporations with special interest from corrupting elections. Now, the role of corporations has changed to allow them the same political speech as individuals. Televised campaign ads have increased over years and increased spending on campaigns helps promote candidates.

12 Marbury V. Madison (Year: 1803) Before Jefferson took office, James Adams and Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, creating new courts, adding judges, and giving the president more control over the appointment of judges. By doing this, Adams attempted to make his successors job harder by appointing 16 new circuit judges and 42 new justices of the peace. These new appointees were approved by the Senate, but were not valid until Madison delivered their commissions. William Marbury had been one of the appointees but his commission was never sent. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to compel James Madison to deliver the documents. Marbury, joined by three other similarly situated appointees, petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the delivery of the commissions. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that cases affecting public or national figures, or where a state is a party are tried with original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. In all other cases (with exceptions), the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction under given regulations of congress. The case was based on the interpretation of this clause and whether the clause gave the Supreme Court the power to choose who tries a case, and what constitutes an exception. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gives the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus (a court order to an inferior official). This act gives the Marbury the right to his commission. Original Jurisdiction the first court to hear the case. Appellate Jurisdiction The review of a previous decision in a new court. The Appellate court can affirm or reverse the previous decision. Writ of Mandamus An order of the Supreme Court to a person of authority or lower court. - The 4-0 decision favored Madison. - The court decided not to require Madison to deliver his commission to Marbury. They ruled that the judiciary act of 1788 was unconstitutional because the act gave the Supreme Court too much power than it was given under the constitution. As a result, this decision established the court s power of judicial review over acts of congress. The appointment of Marbury to his position was invalid because his commission was not delivered before the expiration of Adams term as president. Marbury s commission was valid, whether it was physically delivered or not before the end of President Adams term, because the president had ordered it.

13 The appointment of commissions raised a political issue, not a judicial one. Therefore, the Supreme Court should not be deciding this case. The case falls under the appellate, not original, jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It should be tried in the lower courts first. (Note: the Court stated that Marbury was entitled to his commission, but that they did not have the authority to determine this) The Judiciary Act of 1789 clearly gives the Supreme Court the power to order the commission be delivered. Article III states that Congress can make exceptions to which cases have original jurisdiction in the Courts. The case falls under original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. (Clarify there was no dissent since the ruling was unanimous, but these were the arguments made in favor of Marbury) Established the principle of "judicial review" of laws by the Supreme Court. Although Marbury v. Madison set an abiding precedent for the court s power in that area, it did not end debate over the court s purview, which has continued for more than two centuries. It established that the U.S supreme court has authority, right, and power to not allow laws that are unconstitutional. This impacted American society by, allowing the U.S supreme court to have power to review laws and decide the constitutionality. Schenck V. United States (Year: 1819) During WW1, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring the draft violated the thirteenth amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets were telling people to go against the draft but by peaceful action only. (Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act but appealed on the basis of the 1 st Amendment) The first amendment states that the freedom of press, speech, petition, and assembly are protected. It could be argued that these freedoms protect Schenck from government censorship and punishment after his criticizing took place, because he was just expressing his opinion through free speech. The Espionage Act, Section 3 prohibits citizens from willfully obstructing others right to enlist or recruit into the US military. Prohibition The legal prevention of sale and consumption of alcohol (this form of prohibition isn t really relevant here) Espionage The use of spies to gain classified political or military information. Draft Also called conscription, the compulsory induction of individuals into the military.

14 The 13 th amendment states that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should be present in the US. - The unanimous decision favored the court. (favored the United States) - The espionage act did not violate the first amendment because the free speech of the first amendment does not protect speech that poses a threat or danger. (These would be reasons in favor of Schenck and would not have been part of the majority opinion.) The First Amendment must protect the free discussion of public matters. This practice helps hold government officials accountable and promotes transparency. Schenck was simply sharing his opinions about important government actions and policies. There is an important difference between words and actions. While the government may punish those who refuse to serve in the military once drafted (action), the effort to persuade people not to serve is protected by the Constitution as speech (words). Schenck exercised his free speech rights to communicate his opinions on important public issues. He was not directly calling on readers to break the law, only to exercise their right to redress grievances by writing their Congressional representatives. (These are the reasons of the majority opinion there is no dissenting opinion since the ruling was unanimous) War time is different from peace time; during war the government should have extra power to ensure the safety and security of the American people, even if that means limiting certain kinds of speech. Congress is empowered to declare war and ensure the functioning of the U.S. military. In a time of war, it may limit the expression of opinions if necessary to make sure the military and government can function which includes the necessary recruitment and enlistment of soldiers. In distributing the flier, Schenck and Baer possessed a clear intent to persuade others to not enlist. That is a violation of the Espionage Act, which prohibits willfully...obstruct[ing] the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States. U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 3, 1919, that the freedom of speech protection afforded in the U.S. Constitution s First Amendment could be restricted if the words spoken or printed represented to society a clear and present danger. After the case the "clear and present danger" test was devised to determine when speech is not protected. This court case upheld the government's right to limit or restrict an individual s rights during a wartime. These rights include those such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

15 United States V. Lopez (Year: 1995) Alfonzo Lopez, a senior in high school, carried a.38 caliber revolver into his school in San Antonio, Texas with five cartridges with the intent of delivering the gun to someone else for $40. (Elaborate further he was convicted under the federal Gun Free School Zones Act, which Congress justified under the commerce clause) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives congress the power to regulate international and interstate trade. This clause was debated in the case on whether the GFSZA qualified as interstate commerce. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the right to make any laws that they deem necessary and proper, which could support their implementation of the GFSZA. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) ruled that congress may regulate intrastate activities that would affect interstate commerce. Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. (1964) ruled that Congress commerce includes travel between states, and Congress can prohibit something that affects commerce. Reserved powers Government powers given to the states. Expressed powers Government powers given to the federal government. Concurrent powers - powers neither granted exclusively to the federal government nor denied to the states. Commerce The economic view of trade Decision favored United States.(it favored Lopez because it deemed the Act unconstitutional) - The court ruled Gun free school zones act of 1990 unconstitutional because congress exceeded its authority in the commerce clause when creating the legislation. Different communities have different needs and standards. It should be up to states to decide whether people may carry guns near schools. The Gun Free Schools Zone Act is not like the law at issue in Wickard, which was about buying and selling crops, nor is it like the laws in Heart of Atlanta Motel, which were about customers paying for hotel rooms. Those are both economic activities. The presence of guns near schools also negatively affects students ability to learn, which will impede their future success, and thus affect the economy of the nation. Although possession of a gun in a school zone is not a direct form of interstate commerce, it can be classified as commerce because the costs associated with violent crime are substantial and affect many people across the country.

16 The GFSZA is not related to interstate commerce. The Constitution says that Congress can only pass certain types of laws, including laws that regulate interstate commerce. Commerce means commercial activities, and this law is not related to any commercial activities. The GFSZA does not encroach on state authority as most states had their own laws prohibiting possession of guns on school property. Federal regulation, in this case is concurrent with state regulation and does not displace it. Federal Government s argument was that the possession of a firearm on or within an educational facility would likely lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the condition of the school and the wellbeing of the population. Lopez marked the first time in almost sixty years that the Supreme Court has held that Congress had exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce. In Lopez, the Court held that Congress overreached its power in enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibited possession of firearms within one thousand feet of a school. United States v. Lopez, which held a statute unconstitutional for exceeding Congress's commerce power, raises complex issues regarding federalism and the nature and scope of federal authority under the Commerce Clause. Brown v. Board of Education (Year: 1954) Supreme Court previously supported segregation as long as the facilities were separate but equal Jim Crow segregation grew Similar situations of segregated schools were happening all over the country Linda Brown & her sister were forced to take unnecessary measures to get to the black school because they were denied access to the white school due to their race Kansas did not require segregated schools, but it allowed segregation in cities with over people, like Topeka The Brown family sued the Board of Education of Topeka, claiming that Linda did not receive her guaranteed equal protection under the law The federal district ruled that her rights were not being infringed upon because both schools were equal in regards to buildings, transportation, teachers, & curriculum Official issue: Does segregation of public schools by race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment? 14th Amendment established that everybody has equal protection under the law & allowed Congress to enforce that rule The Equal Protection Clause Segregation The enforced separation of different races Non-white people were thought to be inferior Separate but equal Established by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Says that segregation is Constitutionally supported if the opportunities remain the same

17 HOLDING (9-0 Decision) Segregation in public schools does violate the 14th Amendment Written by Chief Justice Warren The 14th Amendment was written to remove all legal distinctions between all people Specific resources & opportunities used by white students were denied to black students Tangible facilities were equal, but intangible ones, such as the effect of of segregation itself on public education were not Must look at the case through a present lense, not in the time the Amendment was written or Plessy v. Ferguson Education is the most important function of state & local governments No dissenting opinion Education is the very foundation of good citizenship Children cannot succeed if they don t have the opportunity of education, which must be equal Makes black kids feel inferior that can t be undone Separate but equal has no place in public education Fueled the civil rights movement Soon after, Rosa Parks sparked the Montgomery bus boycott & Martin Luther King Jr led other forms of peaceful protest The Civil Rights Act of 1964 started the process of desegregation Set a precedent to overturn other laws that supported segregation New York Times Company v. United States (Year: 1971) In 1970, Daniel Ellsberg published a document that leaked military involvement in Vietnam

18 Known as The Pentagon Papers The NYT published the the first chapter of the papers Nixon administration tried to restrict the NYT from publishing Nixon argued that it was to protect national security Some believed this violated the First Amendment Freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment First Amendment Establishes the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to peacefully assemble, & the right to petition Freedom of the Press Allows citizens to have access to free information separate from government control Prior Restraint Suppressing information on the basis that it is harmful The Pentagon Papers A top-secret study of US political military involvement in the Vietnam War conducted by the Department of Defense HOLDING (6-3 Decision) The Nixon administration did violate the First Amendment right to freedom of the press Two members of the majority, Justices Hugo Black & William Douglas, held that the First Amendment is absolute Justice Black called it unfortunate in his view that some of my Brethren are apparently willing to hold that the publication of news may sometimes be enjoined. Such a holding. He also wrote, would make a shambles of the First Amendment. When the First Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of the press, it means no law, not some laws. The government cannot avoid this absolute command by citing the national security concerns: The word security is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and John Marshall Harlan II both filed separate opinions. They claimed that the case has been resolved too quickly to fully resolve the important legal issues at stake. Chief Justice Burger Complained that the Court rushed its decision in the cases It was accepted, heard, and decided in less than a week The justices do not know the facts He argued that the facts are critical The First Amendment right itself is not absolute He declared that he was not prepared to reach the merits of the cases

19 Justice Byron White and Justice Potter Stewart believed that while there are situations in which the 1st Amendment may be shortened they had to concur in today's judgments because of the conceded extraordinary protection against prior restraints enjoyed by the press under our constitutional system. Although the justices thought that the New York Times had probably gone too far in publishing the Pentagon Papers, there was nothing in the law to prevent the newspaper from doing so. Characterized the Court s rushed decision as a parody of the legal process. Justice John Harlan Complained that the Court has been almost irresponsibly feverish in dealing with these cases The justices had not had time to consider many of the difficult questions of fact, of law, and of judgment. Concluded that the judiciary didn t have the right to second-guess the executive branch on matters of national security beyond Satisfying itself that the subject matter of the dispute does lie within the proper compass of the President s foreign relations power Insisting that the determination that disclosure of the subject matter would irreparably harm the national security be made by the head of the Executive Department concerned Established a dangerous precedent for future cases involving the press and national security Changed the point-of-view on the First Amendment Decided whether this amendment will be further looked into, how it should be used for the people, & how the government can protect the people without harming the people Gave other newspapers more leeway in defending themselves in court Acts as a shield to protect nearly any government issue McCulloch v. Maryland (Year: 1819) In 1791 the First Bank of the United States is established Used to collect taxes, store government funds, issuing sound currency Second bank issued more branches States had their own banks and currency The national bank also had authorized currency. Maryland tried to close the Baltimore Branch by passing a law that made any banks, besides state ones, pay a yearly tax The second bank was the only one this applied to McCulloch, the chief administrator, refused to pay

20 Maryland sued McCulloch & said the Constitution doesn t give congress the power to make a national bank McCulloch was convicted but appealed the decision He argued national banks were necessary and proper He was convicted again, then appealed to US Supreme Court. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 (The Necessary & Proper Clause) Article 6, Clause 2 (Supremacy Clause) The Tenth Amendment Necessary & Proper Clause Gives Congress the power to make any laws they deem necessary & proper, even though they re not specified in the Constitution Supremacy Clause Establishes that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land Tenth Amendment States that the powers not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution go to the states HOLDING (7-0 Decision) Congress did have the authority to establish a bank & Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government through constitutional powers Written by Chief Justice Marshall States that Congress has power to incorporate a bank Laws that follow the scope of the Constitution can be used to carry out implied powers State governments don t have the right to tax or control the bank Considered the bank to be necessary & proper Declared that the Constitution & the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme No dissenting opinion One of the first cases on federal power Enhanced the power of the federal government Ensured original purpose of Constitution: a strong central government Guaranteed that states can t interfere with federal powers