Supreme Court Case of Significance - Term Paper Example

Abstract The essay is written to proffer at least one Supreme Court case of significance related to three of the provisions of the First Amendment. In addition, the rights and responsibilities that the Constitution provides an individual as an American citizen would be evaluated. These issues would be discussed in terms of the rationale for determining the need to discuss each case to be heard and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Finally, the essay would determine how the Supreme Court’s decision in each case continues to affect the rights of American citizens today. Reflections on the First Amendment Law in society is best understood as an endeavor – a living institution performing social tasks. The legal order is more than a system of norms or rules. It is also a set of agencies responding to social needs, pressures, and aspirations. In most human interaction, people have to accept the risk that others will not do what is expected of them. Some expectations are formally recognized and can be the basis of claims of rights. Buchanan (2010, par. 2) averred that the First Amendment “was written because at America's inception, citizens demanded a guarantee of their basic freedoms”. As a “blueprint for personal freedom and the hallmark of an open society, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly and petition” (Buchanan, 2010, par. 3). In this regard, this essay is written to proffer at least one Supreme Court case of significance related to three of the provisions of the First Amendment. In addition, the rights and responsibilities that the Constitution provides an individual as an American citizen would be evaluated. These issues would be discussed in terms of the rationale for determining the need to discuss each case to be heard and interpreted by the Supreme Court. Finally, the essay would determine how the Supreme Court’s decision in each case continues to affect the rights of American citizens today. Provisions of the First Amendment The First Amendment clearly and explicitly stipulated rights pertinent to speech, assembly and religion. Buchanan presented these provisions in concise and abstracted terms, as quoted to wit: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (Buchanan, 2010, par. 1). Patterson (2008, 98) presented these provisions in detail, as shown below: “Speech: You are free to say almost anything except that which is obscene, slanders another person, or has a high probability of inciting others to take imminent lawless action. Assembly: You are free to assemble, although government may regulate the time and place for reasons of public convenience and safety, provided such regulations are applied evenhandedly to all groups. Religion: You are protected from having the religious beliefs of others imposed on you, and you are free to believe what you like.” Supreme Court Case Related to the First Amendment The Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, U.S. (1995, 1) is an example of a Supreme Court case which presented violations of the provision on freedom of speech. The synopsis of the case revealed the following, to wit: “Respondent University of Virginia, a state instrumentality, authorizes payments from its Student Activities Fund (SAF) to outside contractors for the printing costs of a variety of publications issued by student groups called "Contracted Independent Organizations" (CIOs). The SAF receives its money from mandatory student fees and is designed to support a broad range of extracurricular student activities related to the University's educational purpose. CIOs must include in their dealings with third parties and in all written materials a disclaimer stating that they are independent of the University and that the University is not responsible for them. The University withheld authorization for payments to a printer on behalf of petitioners' CIO, Wide Awake Productions (WAP), solely because its student newspaper, Wide Awake: A Christian Perspective at the University of Virginia, "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality," as prohibited by the University's SAF Guidelines. Petitioners filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that the refusal to authorize payment violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. After the District Court granted summary judgment for the University, the Fourth Circuit affirmed, holding that the University's invocation of viewpoint discrimination to deny third-party payment violated the Speech Clause, but concluding that the discrimination was justified by the necessity of complying with the Establishment Clause.” The Supreme Court finally decided that “the University provides printing services to a broad spectrum of student newspapers. Were the contrary view to become law, the University could only avoid a constitutional violation by scrutinizing the content of student speech, lest it contain too great a religious message. Such censorship would be far more inconsistent with the Establishment Clause's dictates than would governmental provision of secular printing services on a religion-blind basis” (Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, U.S.,1995, 1). Analyses The provision of the First Amendment on speech clearly indicated that “you are free to say almost anything except that which is obscene, slanders another person, or has a high probability of inciting others to take imminent lawless action” (Patterson, 2008, 98). The case filed against the University of Virginia stemmed from their refusal to release payments to a third party printer, in behalf of the student group, Contracted Independent Organizations (CIO) due to alleged promotion of “a particular belie[f] in or about a deity or an ultimate reality" (Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, U.S.,1995, 1). As indicated by the petitioners, the University of Virginia clearly violated their Freedom of Speech, as indicated in the First Amendment. According to case facts, “in determining whether a State is acting within its power to preserve the limits it has set for such a forum so that the exclusion of a class of speech there is legitimate, see, e.g., id. at 49, this Court has observed a distinction between, on the one hand, content discrimination -- i.e., discrimination against speech because of its subject matter -- which may be permissible if it preserves the limited forum's purposes, and, on the other hand, viewpoint discrimination -- i.e., discrimination because of the speaker's specific motivating ideology, opinion, or perspective -- which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the forum's limitations” (Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, U.S.,1995, 1). Further, it clearly indicated that “the State's actions are properly interpreted as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, rather than permissible line-drawing based on content: By the very terms of the SAF prohibition, the University does not exclude religion as a subject matter, but selects for disfavored treatment those student journalistic efforts with religious editorial viewpoints” (Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, U.S., 1995, 1). From the foregoing facts, there are indications that the State and the citizens still face various controversies on the provisions and contents of the First Amendment. As emphasized by Buchanan (2010, par. 11), “most people, at some level, recognize the necessity of religious liberty and toleration, but some balk when a religious tenet of a minority religion conflicts with a generally applicable law or with their own religious faith. Many Americans see the need to separate the state from the church to some extent, but decry the banning of school-sponsored prayer from public schools and the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings.” In the case against the University of Virginia, its refusal to release the funds to print a student newspaper expressing views on religious orientations is violations of the provisions on speech and religion. Rationale for Cases to be Heard and Interpreted by the Supreme Court There is a principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. This principle is called due process. In this regard, all violations of rights of individuals and persons are heard and interpreted according to due process. The Congress sets guidelines on the Supreme Court’s discretion to hear a limited number of cases per annum. The cases usually involve the federal law or issues on the Constitution (US Courts: Supreme Court, n.d., 1). How the Supreme Court’s Decision Affect the Rights of American Citizens Today The Supreme Court is deemed as the highest legal deciding body tasked to evaluate cases pertaining to the violations of constitutional laws. Since the constitution proffers laws and rules of conduct affecting the various rights of the citizens of the United States, to ensure a safe and orderly place for the citizens to live in, any decision by the Supreme Court directly affect the rights of the American citizens. In this regard, relevant cases reviewed and evaluated by the Supreme Court must be analyzed in terms of according equal, fair and just treatment of the provisions of the constitution and the rights of the individuals concerned. The system, as previously mentioned, has been successful over the years because of the check and balance mechanism that provided by the legislative and executive branches of the government. It avoids occurrence of error, abuse, or mistakes through a double checking mechanism of these other two branches. It is always careful in coming out with decisions because of the impact of these outcomes to the lives of the citizens, in general. Any wrong decisions would be precursors for subsequent violations of individual rights. Rights and Responsibilities provided by the Constitution to American Citizens The U.S. Constitution online revealed the constitutional rights and responsibilities accorded to American citizens. The site classified rights into: individual rights in the original constitution (Writ of Habeas Corpus, bill of attainder, ex post facto law, and the charge of treason, among others); other rights (writings and discoveries, right to elect Representatives); bill of rights (first ten amendments); other amendments (13th to 26th amendments). From among the responsibilities, the discourse clearly indicated that “no where will you find an explicit list of responsibilities that the Constitution imposes. However, the Constitution assumes some civil duties, and these are inherent in the Constitution” (U.S. Constitution, 2010). Those responsibilities inherent in the Constitution are responsibility to obey the law, loyalty to the United States, to serve as an impartial juror when called, to serve in the US armed forces when needed, and to vote, among others. The legal system is an arena of conflict as well as a source of stability. Courts, lawyers and police are preoccupied with disputes and offences. Law is therefore a public, institutionalized mechanism for resolving controversies and tapped with the citizens to uphold their rights. The constitution’s rights and responsibilities accord active social integration, security, peace and order for all. Conclusion Every society has some machinery for upholding norms, settling disputes, and dispensing justice. In simple societies, law shades into custom and is upheld through informal procedures and sanctions. In more complex societies, like the United States, the legal order is more clearly distinguished and carries a heavy burden of social integration. Legal recognition lends coherence, regularity, and acceptance to legal sanctions, social forms, and codes of conduct. The essay was successful in proffering provisions of the First Amendment and highlighting a case which stipulates violations of such provisions. The discourse likewise determined the rationale to discuss each case heard and interpreted by the Supreme Court and related the Supreme Court’s decision in terms of affecting the rights of American citizens today. Finally, the rights and responsibilities that the Constitution provides an individual as an American citizen was appropriately evaluated. Justice is the protector of rights. Law offers a form to which people can appeal when they feel aggrieved or victimized. As justice is perceived as the protection of rights, a door is opened to the enlargement of those rights. The U.S. Constitution embodies principles of guaranteeing freedom of speech, equal protection of laws, and due process in all legal jurisdictions. Works Cited Buchanan, B.J. (2010). About the First Amendment. Retrieved 13 June 2010. < http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=about_firstamd> Patterson, _ . (2008). The American Democracy. Chapter 4: Civil Liberties: Protecting Individual Rights. Eighth Edition. McGraw Hill Companies. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, U.S. (1995). Synposes of First Amendment Supreme Court Cases. Retrieved 13 June 2010. < http://www.anarchytv.com/speech/rosenbe.htm> U.S. Constitution Online. (2010). Constitutional Topic: Rights and Responsibilities. Retrieved 13 June 2010. U.S. Courts. (n.d.). United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 13 June 2010. < http://www.uscourts.gov/supremecourt.html> Read More