The war in Vietnam was causing significant uprising in the United States, and a political scientist working at the Pentagon took action. He smuggled a paper from the Pentagon called the "Pentagon Papers," that detailed the decision-making process of the U.S. in Vietnam, and gave it to the New York Times to publish. The New York Times began publishing this paper on June 13, 1971, and was ordered to stop by the federal government on June 30, 1971. The case was appealed very quickly and was a question of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The Court ruled in favor of the New York Times with a 6-3 vote, yet all of the justices wrote their own opinions. The majority opinion was that there was nothing in the Constitution that outlawed publishing certain types of material.
I do not side with the Court in this case because there should be some bans on freedom of speech and freedom of the press if the state of the country and foreign policy are in jeopardy, such as what happened with the public release of the Pentagon Papers.
Here is a preview of a PBS documentary on Daniel Ellsberg and what he did to obtain the Pentagon Papers, his motives behind his actions, and the full story behind the Supreme Court case.
The per curiam decision made in the Times case was that "any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." In simple terms, the Court saw that the New York Times could publish things like this, even though they might cause issues and uprising.
Benjamin Gitlow, an communist activist, was convicted of violating the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act and was charged with teaching communist ideals of overthrowing the current United States government. He taught people that it was necessary to overthrow government by advocating mass revolts and political strikes. Gitlow took his conviction to the Supreme Court where the Court decided, with a 7-2 vote, in favor of the state of New York, upholding Gitlow's conviction. the majority opinion of the Court claimed that, even though freedom of speech and freedom of the press are contained within the Constitution, "a state may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organizing government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means." In essence, the decision to give or take away right to subversive speech is delivered to the states as an extension of the Constitution.
I agree with the Court's ruling on this case, and I have found the ruling of the Court in monumental cases is very consistent and intelligent. I believe that the Constitution guarantees the rights to freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and that controlling what people are saying about the government is against the Constitution, because speech cannot be violent. The ancient proverb "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" holds true in my opinion, and words are rarely as effective as actions.
The site CaseBriefs again provides excellent synopses of the rules and precedents established by Supreme Court cases and a great review for major Supreme Court cases. CaseBriefs explains that, according to the ruling of Gitlow v. New York,
State statutes are unconstitutional if they are arbitrary and unreasonable attempts to exercise authority vested in the state to protect public interests.
Criminal anarchy, as defined by the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act, is "the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means."
The 1954 Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas is arguably the most famous and biggest Supreme Court cases in the history of the United States. It overturned the 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, and established that "separate but equal," in fact, cannot and is not true. Blacks had been denied access to segregated white schools that were clearly much better than the black schools, and the cases came up all through the court system to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren, the same person who mandated the internment of the Japanese after the incident at Pearl Harbor, wrote for the unanimous decision in favor of Brown.Warren took from a Kansas state court ruling that said that "segregation...has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system." With the state of the black facilities in comparison with the white facilities and with the Fourteenth Amendment in mind, the Court decided that separate could not be equal.
This monumental decision was very well argued and thought-out, and reflected the changing views of society at the time. During the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, slavery had recently been eliminated, and accepting blacks into society was very difficult for whites then, but as society progressed, blacks began to fight for their rights more, and whites began to accept blacks as equals, like they should be viewed. I agree with this ruling because there was no way that any of the crappy blacks only facilities were anywhere close to as good or clean as the white only facilities, illustrating that there was no way that having separate facilities could be equal
This clip on YouTube from PBS below examines the case of Brown v. Board of Education. It provides a good feel as to what times were like when this court ruling took place with video footage of the different and unequal facilities.
The case of Brown v. Board of Education was different than Sweatt v. Painter in that the case of Sweatt dealt primarily with universities, and the University of Texas Law School in particular, while Brown dealt with public education facilities for grades K-12.
The 1963 Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright established the right to an attorney in any court cases. Clarence Gideon was an extremely poor man who was arrested for breaking into a pool hall in Florida. When his case was brought to court, he was unable to provide himself with an attorney, and the court denied his request for a court-appointed attorney because they were only available in the case of a capital crime, something that Gideon was not convicted of. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison, but from prison, Gideon submitted a hand-written petition that was taken in by the Court. Unanimously, the Court decided in favor of Gideon, overturning the prior case of Betty v. Brady that had set a precedent. The Court ruled that a fair trial is a necessary right as stated in the Constitution, and, therefore, a court-appointed attorney must be provided in cases which the defense cannot provide an attorney for his/her self.
This decision was a monumental one and is a decision that I agree with because the Court did not extend the rights of the Constitution in any strange way; it simply declared that, in order to have a fair trial, the defense must have the means to defend him/her self. This case set a huge precedent in terms of judiciary process and, in my opinion, has made the United States a much more fair place.
This clip from YouTube provides the background and the surrounding details that would make the case of Gideon v. Wainwright and contains some interesting footage.
While he was in prison, Gideon sent in a handwritten petition, called a in forma pauperis, to the Supreme Court for appeal.
The Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona is perhaps among the top most monumental Supreme Court cases and decisions in the history of America. Ernesto Miranda, a convicted kidnapper and rapist was arrested by police officers and submitted to two hours of interrogation, during which signed a written confession, disclosing the crimes he had committed, all without knowing his rights or having them read to him. He was found guilty, and he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Miranda by a vote of 5 to 4, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority opinion. The Court stated that a prosecutor could not use a statement "stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."
I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Court's decision on this case because it has been mandated for every single arrest since then. It is essential that every person knows the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, and if they don't, then they should be told those rights when their freedom and their lives are in jeopardy.
The YouTube video below explains the rights established by the case of Miranda v. Arizona and takes a skeptical, questioning point of view with regards to the decision of the case. The narrator argues that the case may or may not have been directly in the Constitution, yet, I believe that the judicial branch of government, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, has the right and ability to interpret the laws of the Constitution and establish precedents from their interpretations.
The Fifth Amendment guarantees trial by a Grand Jury, guarantees due process and does not allow for double jeopardy and unwarranted search and seizures. Specifically with respect to this case, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that "no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."
The U.C. Davis Medical School used a special type of admissions process to determine which of its applicants should be admitted. In 1973, it had reserved 16 of 100 spots at the medical school for minority or disadvantaged students. Alan Bakke, one of the white applicants to the U.C. Davis Medical School was denied admission even though his MCAT and other test scores were higher than those of the other 84, regular applicants admitted. He took this case to court and, on appeal, the California Supreme Court fell in favor of Bakke and demanded that he be admitted and, in retaliation, the regents appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, proclaiming that the admissions program at the university violated the equal protection clause and was not constitutional, even though it said that there were ways of creating a special admissions program that is constitutional. The majority opinion of the Court asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment, although created to create equality for blacks, does not specify race, and demands equality.
In my opinion, the Court's ruling was very fair and reasonable in this major case. People should not obtain unfair advantages over others because of their race or beliefs or anything, and all people should be seen as equals, unless there are special circumstances surrounding a certain person in specific that should be considered. Universities should admit the best of all applicants, rather than separate white applicants from other applicants and admit that way.
There were very few YouTube videos about this Supreme Court case so, again, I went to the site CaseBriefs to obtain a greater understanding of the case. CaseBriefs provides a good overall summary of Regents of the University of Calfiornia v. Bakke and the decision of the case, and the piece on this case summarizes the rule established by the case as follows:
Race-based classifications, for purposes of school admissions, are constitutional. The use of racial-quotas, however, is unconstitutional.
As I have stated before, I side with the Supreme Court's decision that Fourteenth Amendment, although it was created to create equality for blacks, is not termed in a way that aims the rights it declares as specifically for blacks. The amendment puts no specific terms on the equality it declares, therefore, all races must be considered equal in order to abide by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court case of Miller v. California was between Marvin Miller, the head of a large "adult" film and literature business, and the state of California. Miller sent out unrequested advertisements that contained explicit photographs to various people, promoting his adult books and films. Miller argued that he was protected under the Constitution because of his rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but the Court stated that "states have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material." In a 5-4 ruling, the Court decided in California's favor.
In my opinion, Miller, in some respects, invaded the privacy of the people who he mailed his "adult" advertisements to because a majority of people would not want to see these advertisements, nor would they want their children or other young people to see these explicit advertisements. In addition, there must be some limit on the rights in the Constitution that can be controlled by the states because unlimited freedom of speech, such as the distribution of obscene advertisements, can cause uprise, protests and instability.
The site CaseBriefs provides good background and abstracts of ridiculously long Supreme Court cases such as Miller v. California. CaseBriefs explains the viewpoint of the majority opinion of the Court that:
In determining whether speech is obscene, the basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of sex, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value.
These were the new guidelines established for statutes regulating offensive material. These three guidelines, in essence, state that something is obscene if either the average person would find it lustful, or if it shows something, such as sex, in an offensive way, or if it lacks higher values.
As the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum during the Jim Crow era of America, a man by the name of Homer Adolph Plessy decided to take a stand for equality. Plessy challenged a Louisiana law that mandated "separate but equal accommodation for the white and colored races." "Separate but equal" was a standard everywhere in America at that time, and Plessy's case was the biggest challenge of this standard at that point. Plessy, as an activist, volunteered to fight for equality. He went and sat on the white section of a train in Louisiana, and, when the ticket collector of the train came to collect Plessy's ticket, Plessy, who looked white, revealed to the ticket collector that he was one-eighth black, and was then asked to sit in the colored section of the train. Plessy refused, was arrested, and his case was brought to the Supreme Court. The court decided in favor of Louisiana Judge Ferguson and enforced the standard of "separate but equal," asserting that
The decision of the court was consistent with the majority views of society at the time, and, in my opinion, was correctly decided considering the fairly weak argument that Plessy presented, but, was an incorrect ruling according to the laws in the Constitution. I feel that the highest level of the judicial branch of the United States should take into consideration not only the argument that is presented, but also the laws of the United States that may have not been presented in an argument, and I believe that the Supreme Court failed to do this in Plessy v. Ferguson.
This latter part of this clip details the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, and, if you can get past the narrator's accent, this video provides a very nice background and coverage of this case. This provided a nice overall picture of the case and was one of the few videos on YouTube of the case that was well-rounded and fully informative.
Justice Brown labels Plessy's reasoning that separate cannot be equal as a fallacy because Brown asserted that the segregation laws "do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other." Brown argued that separate but equal can and does mean separate and equal.
The Nixon administration on the whole was responsible for many missteps and grave errors, but the administration also was very effective and capable in some respects. One giant misstep came in 1974, during the then president's reelection campaign that essentially cost him his presidency. Burglars broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at Watergate and stole documents in order to help Nixon get reelected. The U.S. Department of Justice hired an investigator to take on this issue and it was revealed that tapes were missing, and Nixon refused to return them, claiming that he possessed executive privilege. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that Nixon must hand over the tapes for further investigation and that his claimed use of executive privilege would have been a monopoly on power and would have cancelled out the checks and balances that the judicial branch had over the executive branch.
The court did an excellent job handling this case as one of the first cases of a president trying to extend his powers past the Constitution. I side with the court's decision and I, too, believe that once the president declares that he has the right to hide things from other branches of government, he has gone too far.
This video is the first part of President Nixon's resignation after he was confronted in the case of U.S. v Nixon. Instead of waiting to be impeached and forcibly removed from office, Nixon, knowing that an impeachment and removal was coming, decided to resign, and avoided being the first president to be impeached and then removed from office.
President Nixon's claim of executive privilege might have been properly asserted had the tapes contained very classified and volatile information that would cause public outcry and rebellion either within the United States or internationally. Nixon refusing to return the stolen tapes demonstrates a lack of morals and ethics on his part and serves as an insufficient cover for his own wrongdoings.
Jane Roe, a 21 year-old with a baby on the way, brought a lawsuit against the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas when she could not get an abortion. The Supreme Court sided with Roe in a 7-2 decision because the justices felt that the case and Roe's argument concerned the First, Fourth, Ninth, and, as Roe had stated in her argument, the Fourteenth Amendments. Roe wanted to establish the right for a woman to obtain an abortion in the cases that the pregnancy was unwanted, like in cases of rape, and the court sided with her.
In my opinion, as extrapolated from the rights established in the United States Constitution, a woman should have the right to choose because there might be circumstances surrounding the pregnancy that might make a difficult life for the baby and for the parents. In addition, as the the Supreme Court had stated in the explanation of their decision, a fetus in its mother has not developed mentally and physically enough to be considered a person that is covered under the Constitution.
This clip gives some background on the case and viewpoints from various people on the subject. This clip has hints of pro-life, yet on the whole provides a generally unbiased coverage of the case.
As displayed at the end of this YouTube video, Jane Roe never performed the abortion that she fought so hard to obtain the rights for and today, she serves as a pro-life, anti-abortion activist because she explains that she has developed a closer connection with God and now sees the truth and the "horror" of abortion.
