South Central Bell Telephone Company v Alabama - Essay Example

?Commerce clause In South Central Bell Telephone Company V. Alabama, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the citing its implementation of franchise tax discriminated against foreign corporations. The commerce clause of Article I, Section 8 is designed to allow government to regulate commerce with Indian Tribes, states and foreign nations. An often utilized tool to accomplish this is tax. The state of Alabama instituted a tax practice that applied a franchise tax based upon the capital of a given firm. Domestic firms whom opted to organize under the laws of Alabama were granted leeway in the controlling of their tax base. However, foreign firms that organized under the laws of a state other than Alabama were forbidden from similarly negotiating its tax base. These disparities lead to the Reynolds Metal Company to sue the Alabama tax authorities. Reynolds Metal and other sought to be refunded for taxes paid to Alabama on the grounds the state discriminated against foreign companies under the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses. The Alabama Supreme Court rejected Reynolds’s claim, citing additional burdens on foreign business offset the burdens placed upon domestic businesses. An Alabama trail court confirmed the franchise tax to be discriminatory, but dismissed their claims citing the precedent of the Reynolds case. The U.S. Supreme Court found the state’s franchise taxes against foreign firms to be discriminatory. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded Alabama failed to justify its lack of tax negotiating ability for foreign firms when compared to the burdens placed upon domestic firms. Restrictions on freedom of speech On the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights (December 15, 1991), the American Bar Association conducted poll. A mere 33% of those polled successfully identified the bill of rights. (The New York Times) A decade later, sparring senatorial candidates flubbed the identification of elements comprising the First Amendment. (Johnson) In light of these egregious cognitive failings, the common American can identify with the concept of “Freedom of Speech.” However, these same failings in common constitutional education make it clear that few are aware of the existence of exceptions to freedom of speech. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states in part that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech…” Contrary to popular belief, this does not provide the right for the individual American to say what he/she wants, when he/she wants, how he/she wants to. While freedom of speech exists, it is provided to the people with restrictions, conditions, and exemptions. The exemption of obscenity is unique in that the Supreme Court has denied First Amendment protections to obscenity without regard to whether it is, or is not harmful to others. It has been determined by the Supreme Court that obscenity “was outside the protection intended for speech” when the First Amendment was adopted. (ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) ) This ruling has essentially banned obscenity in the interest of social order and morality. It is important to note that obscenity and pornography are not one in the same. As most pornography is not legally obscene, pornography enjoys First Amendment protections due to the fact it does not have to pass all elements of the Miller Test. (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 27 (1973)). One could argue that the Supreme Court has set some very profound precedents in the restrictions of freedom of speech, but the restrictions of speech are far more impacting long before the Supreme or any other court hears the case. The Supreme Court has made it clear employees of the government have the right to free speech when addressing matters of public concern. The Supreme Court has also determined it constitutional for the state to both suspend without pay and terminate employees under the guise of efficiency of service when the employee is making false statements against others in government. Many government employees cannot speak of their work outside of their work place. While this is most often a condition of employment and considered prior restraint, the fact remains that speech is clearly restricted. There are also ethical restrictions on speech of the employed. Patient, doctor confidentiality is one example of the restriction. While it is commonly thought this restriction prevents courts and law enforcement from obtaining confidential information without first seeking the proper legal means to access it, the ethical restriction is further reaching. A physician cannot discuss their patients in casual, social settings even when other physicians are present and may be of benefit to the patient’s case. This is a standard in the health care industry where patient privacy is paramount. This same speech restriction extends to all employees whom are exposed to patients in any capacity ranging from direct patient care to housekeeping services. NPR terminated the services of journalist Juan Williams for stating that he tended be frightened when on a plane that contained obvious Muslim passengers. While the context of his statement was to reflect his honest feelings as a passenger and the true impact of terrorism, NPR terminated him for speaking out against the Muslim community through the rationalization that he compromised his journalistic integrity. While Juan Williams found other employment in short order, NPR fell under attack through threats against their government funding for William’s termination for simply being honest. Senior NPR officials were later taped seeking private funding through an anti-American Muslim activist group where they were heard making disparaging remarks against Williams and tea party. While it was fine for them to speak “honestly” about a Williams and a political organization, it was not fine for Williams to speak honestly about a group NPR as a whole supported with their own organizational and political agenda. It is a mere double standard to most, but fully displays the subjectivity of freedom of speech and its more subtle restrictions. In the military, America’s most amazing citizens suffer far greater restrictions on speech. We have all heard in the movies, “Permission to speak freely sir!” There is actually considerable merit to this statement. Military personnel must voice their concerns through a chain of command and formally request to be heard at the highest levels. Speaking freely may be interpreted as a violation of good order and discipline where the military person can suffer both formal and informal disciplinary action. This exists in the military to ensure orders are carried and to minimize resistance to carry out orders. If soldiers question the orders of tasks in training and in garrison environments, they are more likely to question the chain of command in a combat setting that can in turn cost lives. This restriction on speech is unconditional in a voluntary military service; it is a restriction on speech that many overlook. Procedural and substantive due process In State Farm Mutual Automobile insurance Company V. Campbell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the punitive award of $1 million in compensatory damages and $145 million in punitive to be neither reasonable nor proportionate to the committed wrong against Campbell. Three judges filed dissent in the ruling claiming no substantive protections exist in reference to unreasonable or excessive damages under the Due Process Clause. Judges supporting the ruling cited that few cases award greater than single digit ratios between punitive and compensatory damages. This is to suggest that if the award had been 99 million dollars, the majority of the Court would have ruled in the contrary defining the subjectivity of the Court in this case. Because there is no current regulation in the ratio between compensatory and punitive awards, substantive law was failed by the U.S. Supreme Court, less the three judges who have dissented against the majority. Equal protection approach Where the U.S. Supreme Court finds compelling government interest, strict scrutiny will applied. Where important government interest is found, quasi-strict scrutiny is applied and where legitimate government interest is found, minimum rationality is applied. In cases of discrimination, the Supreme Court will apply strict scrutiny in that fundamental rights are likely be involved. Race is the issue of Adarand Construction V. Pena. Adarand placed the lowest bid for a construction contract, but not awarded the contract. The contract was awarded to a minority business because the government financially incentivized doing business with minority and thus socially and economically disadvantaged businesses. The standard of belief was if a company was minority; Black, Hispanic Asian Pacific and other minority owned; it was considered disadvantaged solely for this reason. Even though Adarand placed the lowest bid, it lost the project because the contractor sought the government reward of doing business with a minority owned company. The Supreme Court found that to presume one is disadvantaged solely due to race is discriminatory. In their ruling, “must serve a compelling government interest, and must be narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” (U.S. Supreme Court Media, Adarand Constructors v. Pena) These words define strict scrutiny as they pertain to related cases. Less this scrutiny, all businesses of a single ethnic group that is not of the majority are to be considered disadvantaged which would apply false incentives to business with the more successful and cause discrimination against select groups because they are not of the minority population. BRANDENBURG V. OHIO, 395 U. S. 444 (1969). No. 395 U. S. 444. U.S. Supreme Court. 09 06 1969. Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967). No. 388 U.S. 130. U.S. Supreme Court. 23 02 1967. Johnson, Paul. "Failing the First." 21 10 2010. Examiner.com. 06 04 2011 . Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 27 (1973). No. 70-73. U.S. Supreme Court. 21 06 1973. ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) . No. 354 U.S. 476 . U.S. Supreme Court . 24 06 1957. The New York Times. "Archives, Poll Finds Only 33% Can Identify Bill of Rights." 15 12 1991. NYTimes.com. 06 04 2011 . Watts v. United States, 394 U.S. 705 (1969). No. 394 U.S. 705. U.S. Supreme Court. 21 04 1969. Read More