Studied by 6 people
McCulloch vs. Maryland decision
states cannot try to tax out a federal bank
unanimously was in favor of McCulloch.
McCulloch vs. Maryland respondent
Maryland
McCulloch vs. Maryland Petitioner
McCulloch
Background for McCulloch vs. Maryland
First bank of the United States was made so then the government would be able to put government funds, taxes, and the currency.
States didn’t agree with the bank as it began opening branches mainly for three reasons.
The bank would be within competition with their banks.
States found the managers of the bank to be corrupt.
States believed that the government was showing too much power over them.
McCulloch vs. Maryland Constitutional question
Did Congress have the authority under the Constitution to commission a national bank? If so, did the state of Maryland have the authority to tax a branch of the national bank operating within its borders?
Arguments from McCulloch
Because congress had passed the law for the bank and Maryland tried to tax out the bank, the state is trying to mess with the congress’ bank, but with the Supremacy Clause prohibits the state’s interference with federal law.
Arguments from Maryland
The constitution does not state whether or not congress can create a national bank. The federal government could begin to raise taxes and that is the state’s conditional power. The bank would also interfere with the state’s own money and economics.
U.S vs. Lopez decision
In favor of Lopez 5-4
The court had ruled that the law had extended congress’ powers under the commerce clause because carrying a law on school grounds or near a school is not an economic issue.
Petitioner in U.S vs. Lopez
the U.S
Respondent U.S vs. Lopez
Lopez
Background for U.S vs. Lopez
Congress passed the Gun Free School Zone Act, in hopes to reduce gun violence in and around schools. It had prohibited people from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone (any area within 1,000 feet of a school). Lopez was caught with a gun in a school in Texas, he appealed his conviction arguing that congress didn’t have the authority to pass such a law (GFSZA)
Constitutional question for U.S vs. Lopez
Did congress have the power to pass the Gun Free School Zone Act?
Arguments for U.S
The supreme court had earlier made the decision that congress could regulate things that are not under their control if they work together, but it will affect the trade in the state.
Arguments for Lopez
The constitution states that congress can make certain laws that keep the “interstate commerce” in check, not ones that can have an effect, and the meaning of commerce means commercial the reading that Lopez was arrested was not for commercial reason.
Baker v. Carr decision
6-2 vote in favor of Baker.
Petitioner: Baker
Respondent: Carr
Constitutional Question: Do federal courts have the power to decide cases about the apportionment of population into state legislative districts?
Background: Each state in the United States were responsible for drawing each distress in their states for many years, however they pleased. Many districts did not change over the course of years. In 1950 Tennessee the state was using the same districts from the 1900 census. The state’s population had changed between the years 1901 and 1950, many people had moved to Memphis, but the county was only represented by one person, while other places had less than one representative. Baker had believed that residents of places with more populated districts were being under representative there for being denied protection from the 14th amendment because their votes were being devalued. The state of Tennessee argued that the courts couldn’t provide because it was a “political question” that the federal courts couldn’t decide.
Arguments from Baker: The U.S constitution, article three, section two says that the supreme court has the power to deal with every case that requires the influence of the constitution. It had required the Supreme court because the residents of Tennessee had “equal protection of the law” under the 14th amendment. “Political questions” that the courts do not address are not determined by a number, and that even though it involves politics, that does not make it a “political question”, and that it is one branch of the government telling another branch what to do. It is not the job of the courts but rather the legislature, the courts would only be telling the legislature to change the districts and how they are formed.
Arguments from Carr: One branch of government should not be able to tell another branch of government what to do, and that all three branches of the government are equal to each other in the constitution, because of this the branches cannot attempt to interfere with each other's basic functions. If the courts attempt to come up with a verdict, they will be overstepping their jurisdiction. The state of Tennessee can enforce, and it can decide what they think is best for their representational system. The federal government should respect the state’s power and not force something on the states, that is not written into the constitution and to leave the states to decide how to draw their districts.
Shaw v Reno
Decision of the Supreme Court (voting): 5-4
Petitioner: Shaw
Respondent: Reno
Background: After the Civil war the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments had given the formerly enslaved people to have American citizenship and the right to vote. White males who didn’t like these new laws had created new “rules” that had made it harder for African-American males to vote by creating poll taxes, literacy tests, and when someone is in jail, to suppress black voters. In order to stop states from suppressing African Americans and other minorities from voting Congress passed the Voting Rights Act in 1965. North Carolina redrew their district lines to include a second minority district, it had run across the interstate 85 in a snake like fashion, it went for 160 miles, it had broken up several counties, towns, and districts that connected to different geographic areas that were densely populated by minority voters. Five white voters had filed a lawsuit against both the state and federal officials in the U.S district courts, for the eastern district court of North Carolina, they argued that the 14th amendment was being violated by district 12 because under the Equal Protection Clause was motivated by racial discrimination and had resulted in a district almost on racial lines. District court had dismissed the case concluding that using race-based districting to benefit minority voters did not violate the constitution, the voters appealed to the Supreme Court, which is required by law to hear most redistricting cases.
Constitutional question: Did the North Carolina residents’ claim that the 1990 redistricting plan discriminated on the basis of race raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause?
Argument from Shaw: In the case of Gomillion v.s Lightfoot, the court had come to the conclusion that if voters were divided by their race, then that was considered racial discrimination, and that it does not change even if it is for the benefit of the minority groups rather than limiting them. Drawing districts based on race advances the stereotype that all black voters will vote for a black candidate and white voters would vote for the white candidate. While minority voters have different views and interests, and don’t necessarily have a single unified “candidate choice”.
Arguments from Reno: The Voting Rights of 1965 encouraged the creation of districts with minorities of blacks, Hispanics, and other minority voters, especially where there had been voting discrimination in the past. In United Jewish Organizations of Williamsburgh, Inc. v. Carey, the court had ruled that racial redistricting was appropriate to avoid reducing the right to vote because of race. The Supreme court had ruled that the constitutional rights were not violated because they weren’t being deprived of effective representation or the right to vote.
Decision: The end decision was 5-4 in favor of Shaw because District 12 was similar to past districts that were also held as unconstitutional, like the weird, shaped district in Gomillion. It was sent back to North Carolina and made the comment that the district courts should find another reason that the district was unconditional by not lumping everyone together by the color of their skin and try to find out what else connects the people in the new district. For if they didn’t then there would be many problems with the Equal Protection Clause.
Marbury v Madison
Decision of the Supreme Court (voting):4-0
Petitioner: Marbury
Respondent: Madison
Background: Article three of the constitution, provides the framework for the judicial branch that is very broad and brief. It gives the Supreme court the authority to hear two types of cases “Original Jurisdiction” and “Appellate Jurisdiction”. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 which gave the Supreme Court the power to issue mandamus. Marshall had sealed all the commissions he had failed to send out all 17 of them to their respective appointees. Marshall had believed that the person who would take his job would finish it, they didn’t therefore leading to those people not being able to ascend office.
Constitutional Question: There was no oral argument at the appellate stage of this case. Below are arguments that can be made for the parties in the case.
Arguments from Marbury: The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court the power to give an order to commission to be delivered. The court should use the power under the Judiciary Act so then they could issue a mandamus against Madison. Article three states that congress can make an exception that allows cases to have original jurisdiction.
Arguments from Madison: Mabury’s position was in the wrong because by the time he had made the claim was before the end of Adam’s term.The appointment raised a political question, not a judicial one. The case would fall under appellate not original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and that it should be tried in the lower courts first.
Decision: The end decision was to not force Madison to give Mabury the commision, but rather to give him the commission themselves although it was not in the constitution. But with this action the Supreme court had begun to raise questions because it was not within their power to grant such a position, which had later made the judicial branch an equal partner with the executive and the legislative branch in the government. The final ruling was that the Constitution had allowed the Supreme Court to be the law of the land and was able to establish the supreme court's final authority on the decision.
Engel v. Vitale
Decision of the Supreme Court (voting): 6-1
Petitioner: Engel
Respondent: Vitale
Background: The U.S has a long history of including religion into political practices. Examples are on the money there are the words saying, “in God we trust”, when testifying in a court trial, presidents are sworn in by placing their hand on a bible, Congress begins by begging a chaplain, and the Supreme court begin with someone saying, “God save the United States and this Honorable Court.” The case is about if public schools may play a role in teaching faith to God through the daily recitation of prayer. Students in New York would salute the American flag and then they would recite the daily prayer that was written by the state education agency. The prayer was “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence, on thee, and we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Two Jewish families that were in the American Ethical Union, a Unitarian, and a non-religious person sued the local school board.
Constitutional Question: Does the recitation of a prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
Arguments for Engel: Public schools are a part of the government, and the Establishment clause states that the government cannot favor one religion over another. The prayer includes “Almighty God” and by saying that it favors monotheistic religions. It violates the Free Exercise part of the first amendment because it affects the children because they are participating in a religious proceeding. Children have to come to school; they can’t skip school if it goes against their beliefs.
Arguments for Vitale: The prayer reflects the nation's past examples of this are: the Mayflower Compact, the founders of the nation had publicly and repeatedly recognized the existence of the supreme being or God. In the declaration of independence there are four references to the creator of humans by using the words “unalienable rights”. Congress opens sessions with a prayer, and presidents often end speeches with “God bless the United States of America”. The Pledge of Allegiance has the word “God” and it is said and widely accepted in schools across the country. That in a past supreme court case was struck down because it had only mentioned God a small part, and it didn’t violate the first amendment.
Decisions: The Court had ruled that the school prayer was unconstitutional because it had violated the Establishment Clause. It was a religious activity that was made by government officials and by doing that they were trying to advance a certain religious belief. An example of this is when people in England had first left, they had left because the English government was forcing down one religion on their citizens, so then the colonists had left England to seek religious freedom.
Wisconsin v.s Yoder
Decision of the Supreme Court (voting):7-0
Petitioner: Wisconsin
Respondent: Yoder
Background: The first amendment protects the right for people to exercise their own religion freely, meaning that the government does not have the power to make any religion illegal. Courts are asked to make decisions that ask whether or not the government is allowed to forbid someone’s way of faith in what they believe in or something that the faith says the person should act. The Amish and Mennonite groups of Christianity see individualism, competition, and self-promotion as something that is wrong because it separates members of the community away from God and the person’s own salvation. Each community in the rural district wants to become largely self-sufficient, so then they will be able to provide for its members' needs with very little help from people outside of the community. Those beliefs had been led through many communities to stop formal education, in the form of public, private, or homeschooling once their children turn 14 years old. The Amish had made the claim that their religious faith and their mode of life are inseparable and interdependent. The count of higher learning and the removal from their religiously infused practices that happen in their daily life, this will endanger the children's salvation, the parents’ salvation, and the continuation of the Amish community. The Amish community provides a different type of education that prepares them for their adult roles in the community. The alternate education also prepares them to be law-abiding citizens and as well as being self-sufficient.
Constitutional Question: Under what conditions does the state’s interest in promoting compulsory education override parents’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion?
Arguments for Wisconsin: By moving the education age up to 16 years old it is a “compelling government interest” because that will benefit society, and that the interest should be enough to to override the Amish community claims that say that the schools will negatively affect their religion. At some point in the future, students will choose to leave the Amish community, so in order to avoid being a burden to society, students will need to have a full and proper education so then they will be able to succeed outside of the Amish community. Mandatory school attendance laws are applied neutrally and equality to everyone no matter what their religion is, therefore, they are beyond the protection under the First Amendment.
Arguments of Yoder: The Amish community provides a different type of education that prepares children for their adult roles in the Amish community, so they don’t need to go to school after the eighth grade because the alternative education prepares the children enough to be self-sufficient.
Decision: The Supreme Court made the decision in favor of Yoder by a 7-0 vote. The court had agreed with Yoder because of the free exercise clause of the first amendment, as well as the 14th amendment, that prevented the state of Wisconsin from compelling the responding to send their children to second school beyond the age of 14. The court had made the decision that the family’s traditions and practices had outweighed the states interest in making the children go to school beyond the 8th grade, and that for something to be “compelling government interest” it will have to be more than two years in high school.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Decision of the Supreme Court (voting): 7-2
Petitioner: Tinker
Respondent: Des Moines Independent Community School District
Background: 1966 the Vietnam War was beginning, so five students ages ranging from 13-16 wanted to show that they were against the war, so they planned to wear a two-inch-wide armband for two weeks. The school found out and said that anyone that wore a black armband or had refused to take it off, would be suspended. An eighth grader, and two high school students wore black armbands to their schools, all three were sent home for violating the ban and they couldn’t come back until they agreed not to wear the armbands. The parents filed a suit against the school district for violating their first amendment rights to free speech.
Constitutional Question: Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic speech, violate the students’ freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
Arguments from Tinker: Public schools are a part of the state government, the 14th amendment protects people from the state’s infringement of their first amendment, the right to free speech. Wearing the armbands was a form of speech, that was silent and passive expression of opinion. Students that wore the armbands didn’t interfere with any other students’ rights, wearing the armbands didn’t intuit the work of the school, teachers, or other students.
Arguments from School District: The first Amendment doesn’t say that anyone may say anything at any place at any time, schools are not the proper place for a protest. Schools have a legitimate interest in making sure that the instruction remains the focus in the classroom and to act within appropriate authority to prohibit the armbands. The school didn’t ban all types of expressions, just the armbands, they were banned because of their inflammatory nature and potential for disruption, students could still express their opinions in other ways, and an example of this is wearing political emblems such as “Vote for this said person”.
Decision: The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Tinkers, they had said it was the students constitutional right to freedom of speech while in public schools. They had claimed that wearing armbands was a form of speech because their plan was to express their views on the Vietnam War. And that it couldn’t be argued that either students or teachers had to shed their conditional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school gate. The court had stressed that this doesn’t mean that schools can never limit the student’s speech, but rather that schools could be reasonable with their predictions, so then the speech could cause a “material and substantial disruption”, to discipline and educate the students at the school, there was no evidence that the armbands were causing problems in class or in the hallways or anything that could interfere with the student’s education.
Schenck v.s U. S
Decision of the Supreme Court (voting): unanimously in favor of U.S
Petitioner: Schenk
Respondent: United States
Background: The first amendment protects the freedom of speech, and like all other rights it doesn't mean that will always be a right protected by the constitution in certain situations. The government can put reasonable limits on protected rights. In the past of American history the government had limited the right to freedom of speech when at war for national security reasons. After two months of entering World War I Congress passed the Espionage Act.
Constitutional Question: Did Schenck’s conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment free speech rights?
Arguments from Schenk: There are important differences between words and actions, while the government can punish those who don’t want to serve in the military once they are drafted. The efforts to persuade people not to fight in the war is protected by the constitution as a speech. The first amendment must protect the free discussion of public matters. The practice helps hold government officials accountable and promotes transparency. Shenck was only sharing his thoughts about the important actions and policies of the government.
Arguments from the United States: War time is different from peacetime, during the time of war the government should have the extra power to ensure the safety and security of the American people, even if it means limiting certain types of speech. Congress is empowered to declare war and to ensure the functioning of the U.S military. In the time of war it might be limited the expression of opinions if necessary to make the military and the government can function, that includes the necessary recruitment and enlistment of soldiers.
Decision: The Supreme court had decided unanimously in favor of the United States. They had made this decision that the First Amendment did not prevent Congress from acting on the prior restraint, the first amendment could be seen to prevent the punishment of speech after it is expressed. According to Justice Holmes, “the character of every act depends on the circumstances in which it is done.”, and that when war the U.S may do many things that might not be said in a time of peace. As Justice Holmes said “Free speech would not protect a man from falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.
Note 
Flashcard (45)