Presentation on theme: "First Amendment Cases ReligionSpeech. Religion VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FRAMERS TO KEEP CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATE!!!!!!!!!!! “Congress shall make no law."— Presentation transcript:
First Amendment Cases ReligionSpeech
Religion VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FRAMERS TO KEEP CHURCH AND STATE SEPARATE!!!!!!!!!!! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Establishment Clause Simple: The Government cannot set up a national religion. Not so simple what that exactly means. How much is separate?
A nativity scene in front of the Capitol Building In 1984, in Lynch v. Donnelly, 211 the Court found no violation of the Establishment Clause occasioned by inclusion of a Nativity scene (creche) in a city’s Christmas display; in 1989, in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 212 inclusion of a creche in a holiday display was found to constitute a violation.
Cases Everson V Board of Education—1947 Public funds to transport kids to religious schools? 5-4: The Supreme Court ruled this is about safety not establishing a religion. Jake, the Establishment Clause isn’t going to get you out of going to school!!! It’s an outrage!! How could the S.C. allow public funding to be used to reimburse my parents for transporting me to religious school??? Stu’s Laws and Lawyers Cartoons:
Engle v Vitale 1962 Prayer in public schools. School in New York had written a prayer to voluntarily be said everyday. Ruling: 6-1 :It’s not the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of American people to recite as part of a religious program carried on by government. Stu’s Laws and Lawyers Cartoons: Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen
The Free Exercise Clause Reynolds v. U.S Mormon gentleman wanted to keep his two wives—challenged the gov. interference into Mormon faith. He wanted his right to free exercise of religion even though it was against U.S. law. laws 9-0: A government may not regulate what religion you practice but each person must follow the laws of the U.S.
Think of it this way… Ms. Ready: “Give me that phone you’re using. You: It’s in my pocket Ms. Ready: Rule says no phones. You: I’m not using it, just checking the time… Ms. Ready: The rule says no phones. You:I have to have it in case my home planet calls me. You have the right to “free speech” “expression” whatever you want to call it, but you must conform to the laws of the nation….
Freedom of Speech Well, yes and no… It is defined to balance individual rights v the desire for social order.
Just so you know, I hate the opinions of these people… See the fences they must stay behind. There’s the balance— freedom of speech/right to assemble and social order.
The Decision 8-1 Upheld Westboro The Decision 8-1 Upheld Westboro Chief Justice Roberts wrote the Opinion of the Court ; Whether the First Amendment prohibits holding Westboro liable for its speech in this case turns largely on whether that speech is of public or private concern, as determined by all the circumstances of the case. Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were. Westboro alerted local authorities to its funeral protest and fully complied with police guidance on where the picketing could be staged. The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence. we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. that we do not stifle public debate Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
Justice Alito wrote the Dissent Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case. Because I cannot agree either with the holding of this Court or the other grounds on which the Court of Appeals relied, I would reverse the decision below and remand for further proceedings.
Schneck v United States 1917 The Justices decided that Schenck’s imprisonment was in fact constitutional. At any other time, he would have been protected by his freedom of speech, but during war time, his words endangered the country as a whole. clear and present danger Justice Holmes for the Majority-- “The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Gave a pamphlet to over 15,000. His message to young men involved with the draft was that they should “not submit to intimidation” and to utilize their rights. During this time, the United States was involved in World War I. The draft was very important for the greater good of the country: its defense. Schenck’s actions went against the common good, and he was therefore arrested. He was “charged under the espionage act with conspiring to cause insubordination.”
Freedom of the Press NYTimes Company v Sullivan