Since we are studying civil liberties this week, I want you to think about the cases that we have talked about and read about some other cases we haven't and decide which case has had the most impact on our way of life in this country.
Head to the Landmark Cases website and skim through the cases (they are just brief summaries). From there, decide which case has had the most impact on our lives as Americans and explain how that impact has changed our lives.
Word Count: 200+
Due 2/7 @ 12pm.
Posts
Although all Supreme Court decisions have had lasting effects on the lives of Americans, the decision of Duncan v. Louisiana is one of great importance. Duncan was convicted on a misdemeanor battery and sentenced to sixty days in jail and a $150 fine, where the judge decided solely the criminal charges for the individual. The court may have argued that this was a petty crime, but the court decided that Duncan’s actions were not pretty crimes. This decision incorporated procedural rights while in trial. Personally, I think it’s very important to be fairly represented in the courtroom. One single judge cannot decide if a crime is significant enough to incorporate a jury. Crimes resulting in jail time, or excessive fines should always have a trial by jury to prevent unfair treatment. The judge may create a biased view point, or be swayed by personal beliefs, so having a complete trial by jury eliminates the margin of error in court cases.
ReplyDeleteFrom the cases that have changed our lives in one way or another, I chose the Dennis v. United States which was voted as a landmark case ruling on June 4th, 1951. This case represents how important our government is to our country and the way it is used in our society today. If a group of people such as the Communists back in the 50’s tried to overthrow our government, we do not know today if we would even have a government let alone a country. We might have been living in USSR right now as a Communist country, if it was not for the decision of the Supreme Court to convict the eleven Communist leaders of fiercely trying to overthrow our government. I believe this is the most important case, to protect our freedoms, and mostly to protect Americans from attacks of offensive speech. Freedom of Speech was open during this time, but with this law, the Supreme Court stated that “In each case, the courts must ask whether the gravity of the ‘evil’ discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid danger.” To avoid danger from other countries from terrorism or threats of any kind, this ruling goes along with the Smith Act to make sure that society’s freedom of speech will not be a necessary “evil.”
ReplyDeleteI chose the Katz v. United States case in which Katz was arrested for illegal gambling via a wiretap on a public phone. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Katz, saying that whatever a citizen seeks to be private must be protected by the Constitution. I believe this precedent is important in today’s world of paranoia and protection. With the hysteria after 9/11, the government felt it necessary to wiretap American citizens to sniff out terrorists. In an ideal world, monitoring of communications is a good way to keep Americans safe. Unfortunately, due to human error, bias, and corruption, wiretapping is far too powerful of a tool to be placed in human hands. Many of the errors in the judicial system could be fixed if there was one person that had the sole authority to immediately place criminals in jail. But could every American agree on one person that they would trust with that immense power? It is the same with wiretapping. We don’t know who is listening in on our calls or for what reason. While it may aid in the fight against terrorism, it infringes way too far into our rights and our privacies as American citizens. Ben Franklin said the famous line “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.” Franklin’s words are more relevant than ever in today’s conflict of privacy v. protection.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Chimel vs California case had a large impact on our society today. Police should not be able to enter your house or anybodies house without a warrant or permission from anybody, especially the person who lives there. They should not be able to search your home and go through all your property without permission. This affects today in many different ways, if this did not happen, today police might be able to walk into your house, go through all your belongings, and arrest you for something they find. They might not be justified to look through your place and belongings. The police would not need a reason or permission they could just storm your home and belongings for no good reason. Although this is not what happened in this case it may have determined this. As for another way it may have affected lives today, it may have put many criminals in jail that could still be out there now. But this case did happen, the police entered this man’s house to look for evidence for his crimes and didn’t have a warrant to do this, although they did have a warrant for his arrest, and were able to search his home due to a law that enables police to search within vicinity of arrest.
ReplyDeleteI think the case California v. Greenwood is an important one because it discussed the rules for where police can and cannot search without a warrant. They decided that because Greenwood's garbage was in a public place and could be searched by anyone at anytime, the police had the right to go through it even though it was technically his "property". This case is important because evidence obtained through searches without a warrant cannot be admitted to court, but there are some exceptions based on what is considered “public domain”. For example, when students come to school, their cars can be searched by the school because they give up that right when they enter school property. The school can act as their parents because they are minors and are under the school’s supervision. This case shows a similar situation, where Greenwood gave up his right because he put the drug materials in the garbage- which is a public place.
ReplyDeleteDennis v. United States
ReplyDelete6-2 vote, June 4, 1951
In the Dennis V. United States case, resulted with a new law called the Smith Act. This simply states that you cannot plot attacks against our government in efforts to overthrow it, regardless of how angry or how much you disagree with the government. If it wasn’t for this act to be created, you would live with the daily fear of someone attacking our government. And from past experiences when our government gets attacked the entire country goes into an uproar and chaos. Nine Eleven was a perfect example. If this law was never created then Afghanistan would be legally allowed to attack our country out of disagreement or anger. Would that really be a good idea, to allow others to take out their frustrations in a fighting manner? NO! I believe this law is good in protecting not just me, but our entire country. It also teaches the old saying, “Take the higher road”. Don’t stoop to some ones level because your frustrated. Fighting doesn’t resolve anything.
Think about what our country would look like if we didn’t have laws in place to protect our government from being overthrown. We could very easily have a new government every year, or month or even week. How would changing our government that often truly help anyone? It wouldn’t because by the time you learn the rules of this government, its gone and over thrown with a new one. I just see the extreme importance of this Smith Act, in not allowing people to simple fight or over throw our government whenever they were dissatisfied.
I decided to pick the Furman v. Georgia case that was presented in June 1972. It dealt with three cases that were brought to the Supreme Court in regards to the death penalty and the racial biases within the overall determination factor. Throughout all the cases the three juries ended up convicting and enforcing the death penalty on each one of the accused suspects. However, the problem was that the juries all imposed these penalties, but had no ethical guidelines to support their decisions they had made. The case went back and forth as to whether the death penalty was moral. Most believed it was, “excessive, unnecessary, and offensive to contemporary values”. All in all, in the end they developed three options for use of the death penalty. I truly believe that this case has impacted our lives as Americans because it ensures that the citizens will not be wrongly executed without probable cause. People do not have to worry about the death penalty if something little as been done. The death penalty guideline adds equality and ensures fairness. People can no longer be executed for something that they may not even have done, without any evidence. Americans should never have to fear over the death penalty and no longer have to worry about being wrongly accused. With the guidelines they are now safe.
ReplyDeleteLooking through some of the cases, I found that Texas v. Johnson was a case that I found particularly important since it pertains to our right to Free Speech. (This case was actually in our packet as well.) Greg Johnson was a citizen living in Texas who burned the flag in protest against the Reagan administration, and for his actions he was fined a total of $2,000 as well as 1 year in jail. The question to this case was whether the burning of an American flag was a form of speech protected under the First Amendment. In the outcome, his actions were categorized as “expressive conduct” and a mode of self expression protected under the First Amendment. I believe that this case has had a major impact on our lives because of the fact that it deals with our right to Free Speech. This right is one that is so important to Americans because we live in a democracy where all of our voices should ideally be heard. People who protest against certain beliefs should not be penalized for being offensive or disagreeable with what the majority of what people believe. The most important impact of this case is the right of American’s to continue exercising the right to Free Speech.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Escobedo v. Illinois case is an important case and has impacted our lives as Americans. Escobedo was arrested in a connection with a murder and was brought to the police station to be questioned. When he asked to see his lawyer, they denied him. Escobedo later confessed in the interrogation to firing a shot that killed the victim without his lawyer present. I think that the right to lawyer is needed to be given to every person, no matter what the situation is. Not giving a person a lawyer or allowing them to see their lawyer makes a person not able to have a fair trial. This also ties in with Gideon v. Wainright where he wasn’t allowed to get a lawyer. Even though Escobedo did commit the murder, he should have still gotten the right to have a fair trial. Gideon should have had the same chance of proving himself innocent. Everyone should have the same chance in the court of law. Everyone should be able to get a lawyer to help them support their case. By allowing people to get lawyers, people have been able to support their case of innocence and not have to go to jail or pay a fine for something they have not done. These cases are very important to the American people and have helped many to get a fair trial and prove their innocence.
ReplyDeleteI chose the 1966 Sheppard v. Maxwell trial which ultimately influenced the level of media coverage at trials. Media coverage can become a vital thing when regarding trials, especially today when information can be shared rather easily due to advancing technology. It also is extremely easy for a writer to manipulate certain situations where those being interviewed, or in this case accused, appear as something they are not. The Stevenson High School newspaper story that Mr. Bolger shared with us is a perfect example of how people can be portrayed in wrong ways due to a reporter’s choice of words. If a writer wants to blow up a story, it does not take much to do so with free speech, but as a writer it should be his responsibility to be as fair and just as possible. With such a serious issue as the Sheppard v. Maxwell case, in which a murder occurred, the media can make the story appear however they wish. Words can be very powerful and before you know it, a newspaper can have the public completely behind someone or completely against them. This may or may not have influence over people’s reactions to the issue on hand. But overall, massive publicity in court can alter the truth to the public as well as fail to give a person a fair trial.
ReplyDeleteI chose the case of Gitlow v. New York, in which Benjamin Gitlow a prominent member of the socialist party and was convicted for violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902. The Criminal Anarchy Law made it illegal to attempt to foster the violent overthrow of government. He distributed thousands of the Left-Wing Manifesto pamphlets and this was seen as violating the Criminal Anarchy Law. Gitlow believed that this conviction was violating the first amendment and wanted to appeal it. After his conviction, Gitlow did appeal the case and won under the argument of the first amendment along with the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. He said he had freedom of speech and freedom of press, so he was not violating any real laws under the constitution. This was an important case because it helped define the limits of free speech for us and can help guide later court cases involving some acts that could also be seen as treason. Protecting free speech is a very important thing to Americans because of the way our government is set up to have some decisions made by the people. Free speech is what makes a democracy fit the people and sets America apart from some of the more oppressive countries. People should not be convicted just for disagreeing or having an opinion.
ReplyDeletePowell v Alabama is the most influential court case on society today due to its underlying effects on the Judiciary Branch itself. On the outside, it is very true that every citizen should be entitled to a fair trial, thus why they must be provided counsel. Yet, there is much more beneath the surface of such decision making: the government is not, and cannot be, black and white. When decisions are made concerning the public, there must be some boundaries, but also some elbow room. Yes, in a more “equality focused” government, providing for a defendant may violate some guidelines concerning equality; but in the grand scheme of things, whether or not the defendant is one hundred percent guilty, no one will really every know unless there is clear cut evidence (in which case it doesn’t really matter if he/she has counsel). There are far too many coincidences, loop-holes, and lucky breaks in our society to separate one citizen from another simply because one may not have enough money or has been defamed for the current accusations. Along with such circumstances, this gray area actually occurs in almost every facet of governmental activity; for this reason, the ruling in Powell v Alabama not only rectifies the error of not providing counsel when necessary, but also proves as a guideline for what the Judiciary Branch’s main focus has been and will always be: the search for the truth.
ReplyDeleteI chose the Sheppard v. Maxwell case in 1966 because it relates very much to the media-filled world today. Dr. Sheppard’s arrest can be seen as unfair and violating. Dr. Sheppard already suffered from the loss of his wife, and at the same time he had the media fussing him and accusing him of being guilty before the decision was even made. Of course people are going to become interested in a case if it is all over the media (magazines, websites, television etc.). All this could potentially affect the seriousness of the case in a severe manner. It could have also biased the judge and jury‘s decisions, leading them to thinking he automatically was guilty. Just like what we went over in class, anything can appear to be the truth as long as what they say or write about seems legitimate. The press and media can take the most innocent person and form them into a deceiving murderer. Especially with all the technology we obtain today, any story can seen and judged upon within a matter of seconds. Everyday, we hear millions of outrageous stories about anyone or anything in the media, we automatically believe that it is all 100% true, but how can we be sure that everything they say is all FACTS? Everything story has two sides, so unless they take the time to reiterate both sides, we will never know the full truth. I believe the Supreme Court made a wise decision in minimizing the publicity in Sheppard’s case, he deserves the right to have a fair trial, without people promoting one side even if he was or was not guilty. What many media reporters fail to remember is that in every individual’s story they are dealing with a person’s life, they need to think twice before they put out personal statements about people-because outsiders do react and it is not always in a positive way.
ReplyDeleteI decided to use the Miranda v. Arizona and Sheppard v. Maxwell as the cases that have made the most impact in our lives as Americans. The first case involved Ernesto Miranda, who accused of rape and kidnap. After being taking down to the station, he was interrogated for two hours until he declared himself guilty. But the police never told Miranda that he had a right to an attorney and the right to keep silent, so he was let go. For me this case is really important because it makes sure that when someone is being accused of a crime or anything in general at least people know what their rights are. No matter how serious or how famous you are everyone has the same rights. Because there are people that come from a low class and are never thought of their right, so it is very important to make sure that everyone is given the chance to stay silent and be read their rights. There are situations when people like Miranda don’t know of their rights and because of the pressure they say things that hurt them in the trial. The other case I used was Sheppard v. Maxwell I think that this case is vey important in the fact that the media can really influence what people view right and wrong. For example no matter what side it is but if a person is getting a lot of media attention and the only side talking out are the prosecutors that make people hate that person not knowing the whole story. This is what happens with everything that is published; unfortunately we believe that all things in magazines and papers are true, when sometimes there not. That can really change the outcome of a case. And thankfully that can’t happen anymore.
ReplyDeleteAlthough many of the cases have had an impact on American lives, I chose the Thompson v. Oklahoma case that took place June 29, 1988. This case showed us what was considered cruel and unusual punishment. Even though the boy, William Thompson, did commit a crime that was so offensive that drastic punishment was needed, there was no reason for him to be tried as an adult even though he was 15 and was sentenced for the death penalty. That is not only morally wrong, but also wrong to allow the prosecution investigate his background history and thus convicting him for the death penalty. I think that what the prosecutors did was very wrong. Until age 18, you are considered a minor. There is a reason for this. Children should never be tried as adults in a court. It’s just not right. I am very glad that we have rights that prohibit us from receiving cruel and unusual punishment. I think that if we did not have this, the convicted would be punished way more than what would be necessary. That clause is there to protect everyone as humans and as citizens. It makes our justice system better for everyone.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Mapp v Ohio case has had the most impact on our lives because if this search and seizure trial had never occurred and the supreme court never overruled the charges so many people would be in jail for crimes that were never properly searched for. The search and seizure right is defined as a person having the freedom to privacy unless the police has a right to be searching for something illegal or that can bring harm to citizens. The only places this right would not work for is in U.S. federal government owned buildings like schools and the White House. Americans would not have the privacy that we have today if this right did not exist and the cops would just search peoples belongings without having probable cause. Our freedom we have today would not be justified. So many people would be enraged by this and our law enforcement would be hated because of this issue. I believe if there is a search warrant for finding one particular belonging or person, the law enforcement should not have the power to put someone in jail if they find something that was not correctly searched for. Overall, I'm glad this law is in place because all of us Americans like the privacy we have and we would not want it to be violated.
ReplyDeleteI think that the case Escobedo v Illinois has impacted our lives the most. Escobedo was arrested under suspicion of being involved with a murder. Police brought him to the interrogation room where he was not allowed to see his lawyer. Even with his lawyer making an attempt to come to the station the police refused for him to have any contact with his lawyer. Then without having a trial Escobedo confessed to that he was the man responsible for the murder. Then he appealed this to the supreme court, where they concluded that his confession could not be used as evidence because he was not given the right to speak with his lawyer. This case impacts us the most because today if anyone is ever convicted of a crime they have the right to speak with their lawyer before being questioned or interrogated. This allows many people to prove their innocence in a fair trial. Without this case going to the supreme court we would have people being forced and accused of things they have never committed in not a justified way.
ReplyDeleteWhen we discussed all of the civil liberties cases in class, the one that stood out to me the most was one of a man who was tried for a crime without receiving a publicly appointed attorney. It was interesting to me because I didn’t so much agree with the way that it was held.. The real thing that should be re-evaluated is the personal testimony and the evidence given at the scene of the crime. If he committed it, there should be no reason for defense, and if he did not commit the crime, then the courts or police system should have some evidence or alibi that rules him out. I do understand that there are different circumstances for each case, but I still believe that the outcome of a trial should not change just because of who has the best lawyer. When I was searching along the cases online, I also saw that there was a case of a trial that was influenced by the media, and that correlates somewhat with my first issue so I decided to investigate further. My thoughts on how it affects the United States are because I believe that the press has every right to become involved as aids with a case of a highly publicized individual. If the shutterbugs can find evidence surrounding the case that breaks it, then why should they be shunned from being interested? They have the resources just as much as any high paid attorney, if not more, and if the judge and prosecutors can look past the outrageous claims and seek out the ones with some validity then why not use them to your benefit and likewise for the accused. If they can retrieve true information that helps clear their name from the list, then it is only in our rights to be able to obtain it for the court’s viewing. I do not believe that the press should be able to get a man off the hook for murder just because they were swamping a courthouse, however. That is the condition in which I think that a reporters intention should be kept away from the trial.
ReplyDeleteI thought that one of the most important cases was Texas v. Johnson. One of the defining qualities of America is the freedom of speech and the Texas v. Johnson case fully embodies the purpose of this freedom. In the case Johnson was jailed and fined for burning the American Flag as a protest of the government’s policies. The Supreme Court ruled that burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution and Johnson was released. This case has greatly impacted Americans by adding on to the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights has always given us the ability to say what we feel, but the Texas v. Johnson case allows us to extend this freedom to physically express our emotions too. Being a democratic country, essentially ruled by its people, the United States should be a place where the people’s feelings and thoughts are heard by the government. When the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson, they mainly extended the definition of what it means to be free and an American. We need to be able to express ourselves and this case allows us to do so safely, no matter how we choose to do so.
ReplyDeleteWith many of the cases influencing the way America is today, I believe that Miranda v. Arizona is the most influential. In this specific case Miranda was arrested for rape and then was interrogated until he confessed, without knowing that he had the right to a lawyer, and that anything he says or does can or will be used in court. The Supreme Court ruled that without being informed of this information that he self-incriminated himself. Now I believe that this cases really helps everyone in America have a fair trial no matter the circumstances. That even though they committed the crime or not is not for the criminal to answer, but for the prosecutor to answer. Now with this case, came the Miranda Rights, which are said every time someone is arrested. Without the rights being stated the suspect is vulnerable to self-incriminating itself and giving up information that should not be said under his or her rights. If I was in the situation where I could be in a lot of trouble for a crime I committed, I would not want to put myself in jail not knowing that I was able to keep my mouth shut, and have an attorney do all the talking. These rights also are very similar to the 5th amendment to which I do not have to speak when asked a question.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Texas v. Johnson was one of the most important cases that I found. The reason I found it so important is because it talked about our free speech and what you can and can't do under the protection of the first amendment. Greg Johnson, a man living in Texas, burned a flag in protest for the Reagan administration. He was then fined $2,000 and was sent to one year in jail. He went to court saying that burning the flag is a form of speech and it is protected under the first amendment. It had a impact on our lives as Americans because it deals with our own right to express free speech. Even if someone wants to protest against America and say that it is the worst country in the world, America gives them that right to let them say that. So unless someone in their speech puts another person in harms way, like screening fire in a building, a person can express them in almost anyway as a form of free speech that is their right as citizens of the united states. If we end of blacking what other people have to say, then we would never get any other beliefs or ideas besides what the government want us to have, and that would destroy our democracy that we have.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Gideon v. Wainwright case has had the biggest impact on American lives. This case further extended the rights given from Powell v. Alabama so as to allow all criminals the right to a court appointed attorney, even if they could not afford one on their own. This case also overturned the ruling on the Betts v. Brady case from twenty years earlier. After the hearing of Gideon v. Wainwright all citizens are allowed a counsel like the sixth amendment promises, and prior to this case, some courts had discriminated against some people so as not to appoint them an attorney at the courts expense. This has impacted America because now everyone has a fair chance in court and even if they do not want to have an attorney present, at least they had that option. After the Powell v. Alabama case courts allowed the appointment of a lawyer for capital punishment cases only, and it was just a matter of time before the Supreme Court made this law to expand among all people convicted of a crime, no matter if it is for capital punishment or a smaller crime. I believe this is important because a person should not be given fewer rights just because they had a lesser crime.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Escobedo v. Illinois case was one of the most influential cases on American lives. Escobedo was not given a lawyer at the time of his interrogation. The police would not let him see his lawyer and he was taken advantage of because of it. Many people are accused of crimes they did not commit and many of these people can not afford a lawyer. Today, these people are not take advantage of and getting wrongly imprisoned because of the “Escobedo Rule”. This rule makes it necessary to be given a lawyer when the suspect is being questioned. It then prevents false confessions that can be used against the suspect in court. Being questioned for a crime is a very stressful time for anyone. Americans now have a lawyer to handle the stress and not be wrongly committed of a crime. Americans should be thankful for this trial because now they truly have the right to a fair trial because of this case and rule.
ReplyDeleteI think the case of Katz v. United States was one of the more important cases that the Supreme Court ruled on. Even though all the cases the Supreme Court rules on affects each and everyone of use, this case stands out. Mr. Katz was arrested for illegal gambling after he transmitted information through a phone booth. Since they put a tap on the phone line, and they never physically entered the booth, the claimed they did not breach the fourth amendment. Yet the court saw differently and ruled that they did breach it based on the idea if a citizen purposely looks for a private place, it is protected. If this case had not been ruled the way it was, the government could easily monitor whoever it wanted. This would make it such that the 4th amendment would only apply to your own property, and everywhere else the government was free to track you. Since most of people’s interactions occur outside of their home, anything that you say could be used against you. It would mean that you would basically “big brother” always looking after to you, waiting for you to slip up. Yet since it was ruled the way it was, the 4th amendment now protects a person where ever they go, when they seek to be private.
ReplyDeleteI think the Furman v. Georgia in June 1972 is one case that impacts our society today. It dealt with three cases that were brought to the Supreme Court having to do with the death penalty and the racial biases. Three juries ended up convicting and enforcing the death penalty on each one of the accused suspects. Although, the juries imposed all of these penalties, they had no real guidelines to support their decisions. This case continued to go back and from to decide whether or not the death penalty was ethical. Many believed it was “excessive, unnecessary, and offensive to contemporary values”. In the end they decided to have three options for use of the death penalty: “mandatory death sentence for certain crimes, development of standardized guidelines for juries and outright abolition.” I think that this is a big impact on our society today because it confirms that the people that live in America today will not be wrongly executed without probable cause. Americans today, won’t have to worry about the death penalty. This will make equality more efficient. This case will allow our society to believe more in not being afraid of getting executed or accused of anything.
ReplyDeleteI find the Miranda v. Arizona case to have a big impact on America’s past and future. Ernesto Miranda was arrested and accused of rape and kidnapping on June 13, 1966. After his victim identified him, he confessed in writing to both crimes. The police never read Miranda his right to an attorney, or informed him that whatever he said could be held against him in the court of law. The court ruled in favor of Miranda because his confession was admissible. I see this case as very important because it emphasizes equal treatment of any accused criminal. No matter how rich, or how poor, everyone has equal rights in the court of law, and a man like Ernesto Miranda, criminal or not, deserved his rights. Even though reading him his rights may not have changed the outcome of the case, it is still imperative that all people who commit a crime be viewed as equal. Sure, Miranda probably did not stand a chance in court with or without an attorney, but it’s still the fact that the police slipped up. This case was very important because without it, the same mistake could have been made several more times, and innocent people could have been sent to the court room with no hope.
ReplyDeleteI feel that the case that has impacted our lives the most is Duncan V. Louisiana. In this case Duncan was fined one hundred and fifty dollars with a sentence of sixty days in jail because he was convicted on a misdemeanor battery. In this case they did not allow Duncan a trial by jury as the sixth amendment states that we have the right too. This case has changed the fact that yes we still have the right to determine if it was bad enough to deserve a trial by jury but if requested they must allow it. The ability to have a trail by jury could either change the sentence or not but it is a right that we all have and should always have. If we did not have the right to a trial by jury we would not be able to have a fair trial. A judge cannot decide if a trial is good enough to have a jury or if it will just be tried by him or her. Though some cases do not but with jail time they do deserve to have a jury if requested if not requested then the judge has the right to decide.
ReplyDeleteIn the Court Case Feiner vs. New York, Feiner was a man who was speaking on a street corner against President Truman, the American Legion, and the local officials. He was urging the people who had gathered to violently oppose the injustices of society. The crowd started getting restless because they were all of mixed opinion. When the Police showed up they asked him three times to stop and when he refused because they say it was his right to free speech. They arrested him. Since he was encouraging the crowd to fight back violently the right to free speech was eradicated and he was arrested. I feel that this has an impact on our way of life in this country because it says we have the right to free speech but when that free speech starts to become violent and put other people in harms way, are free speech is taken away.
ReplyDeleteThough this case doesn’t have a direct impact on our everyday lives, I feel that what this case resulted in is fundamental to United States Democracy. The most immediate and direct result, was be the power of judicial review given to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court was given the power to judge the constitutionality of various issues that may arise. Prior to Judicial Review it was never clear who decided the constitutionality of issues.
ReplyDeleteIf Judicial Review was not in place, there would most likely be much debate on received this power and it would also be hard to be consistent in judging various issues if this were the case. Furthermore, I believe that without Judicial Review, the Constitution written by the founding fathers would not be place today. I say this, for the Constitution written by the founding fathers was somewhat vague, it didn’t give clear cut and concise answers as to the constitutionality of issues. It is for this reason that Judicial Review is so essential, because as the constitution is vague, and with changing times, it was inevitable that there would be disputes over matters and that interpretations of the constitution had to be made.
The Gitlow v. New York case stands out as especially important to me, due to the precedent it sets to secure our rights as Americans despite attempts to prove otherwise. Gitlow was attempting to plan a government overthrow, but it was decided that this was protected by freedom of speech. I agree with this decision, because if we adopt a “free speech means our ideas” policy then we are only proving men like Gitlow right. What is there to defend in a government that won’t allow criticism from its people? All Gitlow did was publish communist propaganda; nothing violent that posed a clear threat. It is just another political party like republicans or democrats. This affects us today, especially with all the recent political turmoil over the Obama administration. Without protected speech we would have thousands of people in jail for trying to “overthrow” Obama with propaganda. The government protects our speech, even if it hurts itself. If I wanted to protest the Obama administration and hand out republican “propaganda” I could. (I am NOT a republican btw) I have received a bunch of these in the mail, and some even seem threatening, but if we charged these people we would be proving the closed mindedness of our government and only helping their cause.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Dred Scott v. Stanford case was perhaps the most powerful case in terms of helping further the revolution for the outlaw of slavery, but I believe the cases that had the most impact on Americans as whole were the Powell v. Alabama and Escobedo v. Illinois cases for a right to an attorney. In the Powell v. Alabama case nine black boys were accused of the rape of a white women and sentenced to death without having the proper time to create a defense with an attorney. The case was brought before the Supreme Court and the decision was later overturned but had it not nine potentially innocent boys would have been executed without fair trial. There were probably many other similar cases to this in the south, as racism continued to run high and man innocent people were probably wrongfully convicted but this case helped to combat that by making sure they were allowed an attorney to defend them. In the Escobedo case, Escobedo wasn’t allowed to see his lawyer and admitted to murder and was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned this case as well because the evidence of the confession was illegal because he hadn’t been allowed an attorney. Despite the fact that Escobedo was a murderer he was let go because the court hadn’t followed the rights of the 6th Amendment, which was significant because they had let a very dangerous man go free because of their inability to follow the rules.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the case of Duncan v. Louisiana has had the most impact on our lives as Americans. In this case Duncan was convicted on a misdemeanor battery, but this conviction was not the result of a jury trial, but was instead the unilateral decision of a municipal judge. The state of Louisiana allowed crimes with penalties without the potential of a severe punishment to be tried by a judge in such fashion. Without Duncan’s appeal the Supreme Court, stating that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury, many states other than Louisiana may have adopted this law of conviction by a municipal judge on minor cases. If that would have happened many people may have been wrongly convicted and have their Sixth Amendment right walked all over. This had the most impact because it helped define what the Sixth Amendment was actually stating and that Louisiana can not convict people base solely off one judge. This was also important because people started to understand their rights more, thus the country is becoming for defined and the laws set in stone, so that everyone knows them and follows them. The citizens felt safer after this case, they saw that if the government did not follow their rights they could take it to the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteA good case that can be viewed from both sides is the California v Greenwood. The police looked through his bag that he owned and it was on the street and found illegal substances in there, but were looking for something else. He was charged for having the illegal substance that was on him at the time. He argued that they did not have a warrant, but the court and government came back and said any person, animal, official has the right to look in an unattended bag. I think that in this situation the justice systems were right. They had a right to look in the bag and protect other people. They did not let this slide because in a sense of freedom v protection, for him to possess the substances he is endangering other people. In Feiner v New York, Fiener was arrested and deprived of his freedom of speech because clear and present danger. He was arrested because the protection of other citizens were in danger and its the polices job to make sure that the community is a safe environment. The protection part takes away your freedoms and one only has their freedoms to an extent or the freedom only goes to an extent. Once one creates clear and present danger of the protection of others or himself, the justice systems and police are suppose to act.
ReplyDeleteOne case in particular that I personally believe has had a huge impact on our society is the case of Escobedo vs. Illinois. This is a case where a man was arrested in connection with a murder that had taken place, and was continuously denied access to meet with his lawyer while he was in the interrogation room. Escobedo soon confessed to firing the gun that killed the victim and was convicted of the crime soon after. After the conviction, he decided to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, who deemed the counsel was in violation of the 6th amendment, soon overturned the conviction. The court also defined the “Escobedo Rule” which says that individuals have the right to an attorney when the investigation is no longer a general inquiry. The results of this case will just reassure that the rights of the individual will always be present when they are the accused of a situation. That is why I feel that this case has had the biggest impact on us as a society. I just think that it is important that the individual always has the right that they ultimately deserve as a citizen. This will assure that there will always be fair trials, and never wrongfully accused.
ReplyDeleteMost Supreme Court cases have had an effect on Americans, but there are a few that stand out the most. They all have connections between them. The first one is Dennis vs. United States. It was made on June 4, 1951. It was about the Smith Case preventing the spread of Communism in the United States. In this case the eleven communist leaders tried appealing but the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government. This basically stopped them from being able to turn our government to a communist state. It allowed the American people to be able to leave the way they live today and not have a communist government. The other case I think had an important impact on Americans was the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case. It was made on March 6, 1857. Dred Scott was a slave that had traveled with his master into a “free soil” state. There is nothing in the Constitution that says anything about the Congress having a greater power over slave property. The Courts said that blacks could not become citizens and were not entitled to privileges and immunities entitled to Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment later overturned that decision on citizenship. This started the change in American on having everyone be equal with the way they are treated and privileges
ReplyDeleteI think that the case of Texas v. Johnson has had the most impact in our lives as Americans. America is known for being the country where the citizens can have freedom of speech, and this case illustrates that. Johnson was only conveying his opinions about the current president, not starting fights or doing anything violent. It was foolish to arrest him because he wasn’t “preserving the integrity of the flag as a symbol of national unity”. That was his point, to show how he didn’t believe that Reagan’s policies were uniting America. And nothing that would be a breach of peace had actually happened yet, and so they didn’t have a legitimate reason to arrest him. This case is important in the present because American’s need to know that they are able to voice their opinions without being, in Johnson’s case, arrested for it. And not only did the case show that people can voice their opinions, but that they can also express these opinions physically. It’s also good that the government was involved with this case because it gave Johnson’s opinions a chance to be heard by the government and that it allowed people to physically express their feelings and not be arrested for it.
ReplyDeleteI came across the case of Dennis vs. the United States, and I decided to write about this because this is just one example of a case that draws the line between the unprotected and protected speeches in the U.S. In this case, eleven communist leaders were caught plotting to overthrow the United States government and were put on trial. The communist leaders contended that the Smith Act, which was the law they violated, was unconstitutional because it prevented the freedom of speech and even to some extent, beliefs. However, because these plans were viewed as clear and present danger, it was acceptable for the defendants to be convicted. This is a great example of the line that cannot be crossed even with our free speech. I’m glad that we have free speech and I am amazed that people can honestly try to argue that the government is taking away our rights when we are clearing presenting danger to other people of the country. I also found it ironic that a bunch of communist leaders wanted to overthrow the government and then when they were caught they tried to use the rights that they currently had (and wouldn’t in a communist nation) to bail them out.
ReplyDeleteA case that I believe has had a great impact on our society today it the Escobedo v. Illinois in 1963. This was a case where a man was arrested for murder and then interrogated right away. He asked multiple times if he could speak with his attorney before the interrogation but was denied. Escobedo later admitted to shooting the victim and then was convicted. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction due to the 6th amendment. The court also made the "Escobedo Rule" which gives the person right to attorney. This has impacted us as Americans because it assures us that we are receiving human rights as it should be. This is very important in today's society because speaking with an attorney before interrogation can change how the convicted person represents itself.
ReplyDeleteWhen I looked through some of the Landmark Cases there were some that stood out to me. The first one was Dennis vs. United States, it was about the freedom of speech and how people could not plot to over through a government “In each case, the courts must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid danger“ . I think that is very important and helped all the lives in America because it keeps them be safe, and makes sure that the people who are in charge of our country stay in charge. If they didn’t have this Smith Act then that would make it easy for communist to over throw our government and then we wouldn’t have the freedoms and protections we have today. The other case that stood out to me was the Gregg vs. Georgia case because it talked about the death penalty and how the “punishment of death does not invariably violate the constitution”, I feel like this is a very serious part of our countries laws and it should be looked upon it has not really impacted my life but the person that is being sentenced to the death penalty is affected a lot, and I honestly do not have a one sided opinion but it is important to think about.
ReplyDeleteI am going to choose the case involving Miranda V. Arizona. The reason I am choosing this suit is because I think this is one of the most life changing case for everyone around the world. The case took place on June 13, 1966 and voted a 5-4 vote. This had had the most impact on our lives because whenever anyone gets up under arrest they have to read you something called the Miranda rights. The Mariana include that you have a right to an attorney and you have the right to remain silent and that anything you say can be used against you from this point on. People all around the world are hearing this speech every minute. This changed our country as a hole. So if I were to arrest someone and not read them there rights and I find all of these drugs and other illegal thing I would not be able to use it against them in a court of law due to the face that I didn’t read them there rights. Than if I did read them there rights and found illegal items in there home than I could use it against the individual. These right shows that everyone is given the same choice know matter how high or low an individual is on the social class system.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the case of Gitlow v. New York had a very important impact on the lives of Americans in terms of their freedom of speech. This case was huge in protection of free speech, especially in the form of publications. Gitlow published and distributed documents which advocated the creation of a new system of government which would be socialist. While there were laws against this in New York, he believed that his first amendment rights protected him from this law, and the supreme court agreed with him. This case sets a precedent for speech which is against our own government. It allows us to speak out against our own government without having to worry about our speech being stopped. Even if a group of people has a completely crazy idea about what kind of government they wish to have, they are allowed to freely talk about it and express their opinion to other people.
ReplyDeleteI decided to write about the case of Dennis vs. the United States because I believe this case shows a great example of what is considered to be a protected or unprotected speech in the U.S. When the U.S. and the USSR started battling against each other, eleven Soviet communist leaders were caught planning to overthrow the U.S. government and therefore were incarcerated. They then appealed the decision, and stated that the Smith Act (Law that prevents communism from spreading in the United States even if no physical steps had been taken) was unconstitutional. When this case got to Supreme Court, the Court ruled in favor of the government because "In each case, the courts must ask whether the gravity of the 'evil' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is necessary to avoid danger." I believe the Smith Act is great law that not only protects me, but every United States citizen. This act also keeps people in place by not allowing people to try overthrowing a government when they disagree with the government on an issue. All people are different and are affected differently by every government decision. The Smith Act keeps a little bit of peace as well because people can’t overthrow a government so they will have to wait until the next election to make a change.
ReplyDeleteAlthough all the cases have a large impact on all the lives of Americans I feel that Mapp v. Ohio has one of the largest impacts. The Mapp v. Ohio dealt with illegal search and seizure. Mapp’s home was illegally searched and she was charged with possession obscene material. I feel that this is a very important case because it prevents the government and law enforcement taking advantage of their rights and taking advantage of the people. If this amendment was not in place to prevent this police would be able to just barge into a house with no permission just because they thought there was illegal activities without proof. While free speech is very important I think that this case helps to show how the government is not allowed to take advantage of the citizens. The government could have committed illegal searches on anybody they wanted to just get them in jail. The impact of this case allows privacy in our lives and does not allow for any liberties to be violated. This amendment creates a separation between the government and the people. It gives the people a chance to have some privacy and not be criminalized by the government whenever they want to.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Furman v. Georgia case in 1972, regarding the death penalty has impacted our country the most. This case illustrates the differing opinions of which the death penalty should or should not be able to be used. Some rule it as a cruel and unusual punishment that goes against the Eighth Amendment, but others believe that it serves as closure for broken families and eliminates the chance of a prisoner parole to kill once again. The Furman v. Georgie case created three options for the use of the death penalty which included mandatory death sentence for certain crimes, development of standardized guidelines for juries, and outright abolition. This decision impacted our country greatly because it divided states by the acceptance or elimination of the death penalty. Today, more than half the country allows the death penalty but with certain guidelines. There has been an ongoing battle concerning factors that should defiantly be taken into consideration if death penalty is allowed in a state. Some of these factors include, mental illness, juveniles, possibility of innocence, public support, religion and women. Public support of the death sentence fluctuates between agreement of death sentence or life in prison. In April 1999, United Nations Humans Right Commission passed the Resolution Supporting Worldwide Moratorium on Executions. The resolution “calls on countries which have not abolished the death penalty to restrict its use of the death penalty, including not imposing it on juvenile offenders and limiting the number of offenses for which it can be imposed” (New York Times, 4/29/99). Ten countries, including the United States, China, Pakistan, Rwanda and Sudan voted against the resolution. Presently, more than half of the countries in the international community have abolished the death penalty completely, or for ordinary crimes. However, over 78 countries keep the death penalty, including China, Iran, the United States, and Vietnam all of which rank among the highest for international executions. This is a controversial subject that will continue to influence our country for a very long time.
ReplyDeleteOn March 8, 1949, Irving Feiner was arrested after making a speech to a mixed crowd African Americans and white people at the corner of South McBride and Harrison Streets in Syracuse, New York. Feiner, a college student, had been standing on the sidewalk, addressing a crowd he's remarks about President Harry S. Truman, the American Legion, the Mayor of Syracuse and other local political officials and urged that African Americans rise up in arms and fight for equal rights. the police arrested him, and he was convicted of violating 722 of the Penal Code of New York, which, in effect, forbids incitement of a breach of the peace. Feiner claimed that his conviction violated his right of free speech under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United Stats Constitution. Court found that Feiner's First Amendments rights were not violated, because his arrest came when the police thought that a riot might occur. The Court found that the police did not attempt to suppress Feiner's message based on its content, but rather on the reaction of the crowd. This case is an example of how most americans feel like they can say anything and get away with it. Now they are allowed to say anything as long as it's not libel, slander, incidiary, obecenity or could cause clear and present danger.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the case of Sheppard v. Maxwell has had a great impact on our lives today. This case relates to the way the media covers court cases today. The media possesses the power to change the public opinion on many issues. This power carries over to the judicial system and I believe that the Supreme Court made a good decision in siding with Sheppard and scaling down the amount of publicity in this case. I also believe that the Supreme Court should have been a little bit more severe in the ruling because even today it seems as though there is too much publicity in cases that the media thinks they can completely blow up. One instance of the media giving one case to much publicity and potentially ruining a man’s chance at a fair trial is with the case of Drew Peterson. Although in my personal opinion I believe this former police officer is guilty, it doesn’t stray away from the fact that I believe with the amount of media coverage given to this case there is no impartial jury that can be found to try this man. If the media keeps up their bias news coverage of this trial then Peterson could take it to the Supreme Court and plea that he didn’t have a fair trial, thus putting a murderer on the streets.
ReplyDeleteOf those I looked at, the one which spoke the most to me would be Texas v. Johnson, in which a man burned an American flag in protest of the republican national convention. The conviction was overturned, protecting the right to burn flags under the concept of it being an expressed form of free speech. What I love about this is that not only does it protect the right to burn the flag, but it also is saying that the public does not have to agree or like what one has to say or how they say it, as they have every right to be as annoying about it as possible. People may have to worry about social repercussions and negative opinions for things they may say, but they do not have to worry about the government stepping in, even if it is about the government, which brings beauty to this nation. Many places in the world do not allow this, but this case helped support this idea. The criticism of the government over the past 20 or so years have taken interesting forms, from protests to music to radio shows to blogs, but the reasoning remains the same: We live in America, and we can say whatever we want.
ReplyDeleteThe rights of Americans today are heavily influenced on the court cases we discussed in class. In my opinion Miranda v. Arizona was one of the most important. This particular case dealt with a number of cases in which defendants were questioned without being given their Miranda rights, and specifically without being informed of their right to counsel. Without these rights, those who are accused of a crime are not given a fair trial because they are taken advantage of since there is no one to protect them. In seeing this and seeing how all the defendants were wrongly prosecuted, it is safe to say that without the Miranda rights the majority of those accused would be found guilty. This case allowed American citizens the right to a fair trial under any circumstance. Without these rights being presented to the suspect one is vulnerable to self incrimination and may give up information that does not need to be shared. Everyone has the right to a fair trial and representation and without this case, instances like the ones brought up in Miranda v. Arizona might still be happening today.
ReplyDeleteI decided to choose the Powell v. Alabama trial in 1932. The trial was of nine black youths who were charged with rape of a young white woman. They had no council who would defend them until the court found one attorney who would but they had little time to meet with the attorney. Thus the boys weren’t defended fully and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court reversed the verdict because everyone deserves a fair trial. This is very important to us as a society because no matter what race or background of a person we deserve a fair trial. No matter what crime we as people deserve fair trials so those who are innocent are not wrongfully convicted and those who are guilty see the full extent of the law. The constitution gives American people the right to a fair and speedy trial and nobody has the power to take that away from people.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Texas v. Johnson trial was a very important trial in that Johnson was allowed to express his beliefs and protest a cause as long as he did not infringe on the rights of others. This is extremely important in our country because had he been convicted it would have sent a message that protesting for what you believe is right is illegal and dangerous. The citizens of our country are supposed to be in control of it and if they aren’t able to express their beliefs, how are they going to make things the way they desire them. When people are against a war, (The Beatles for example) they protest any way they can that will bring attention to their beliefs so someone will listen to them. In order for the people to get what they truly want, they must be able to express themselves without fear of prosecution. Johnson did something offensive to many people but it sent a message to everyone who heard or saw it and got lots of attention. These acts allow people to make changes to their lives and without letting people express themselves freely we are simply another country run by a couple of rich guys.
ReplyDelete