The Connection Between the Constitution and the Law - Essay Example

The US Supreme Court The freedom of speech is a constitutionally guaranteed right of every American citizen. It is one the most important fundamental rights of an individual, a fact illustrated by its inclusion in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This is so vital a freedom that it is the first thing that is suppressed in every repressive regime. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) which is the country’s court of last resort has time and again proved its resolve to ensure that no one tramples with this freedom. This is why in the case of Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 US 1, this Court upheld its inviolability even though it “induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with condition as they are, or even stirs people to anger.” We acknowledged then that one of the functions of this freedom is precisely “to invite dispute.” Through Justice Holmes in the case of Abrams v. US 250 US 610, we explained why the Court put so much premium on this freedom: “When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe, more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct, that the ultimate good desired is better reached by a free trade of ideas – that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market; and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes can be safely carried out.” With these in mind, the Court proceeded to hear and decide on the case of Calhoun Country School District v. McLean, brought to us on appeal from the decision of the US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The issue in this case was whether or not the school had the right to subject a student to disciplinary measures for delivering a speech that resulted in disruptive behavior before an audience composed of fellow high school students. The Facts of the Case Alisha McLean is a high school junior in the Calhoun County School. On October 24, 2006, the school celebrated United Nations Day. The students gathered in the school auditorium to witness a school program put up by the high school students where students paraded on stage dressed in the national costumes of various countries. Alisha McLean is one of the participants and she came in dressed as a Swedish woman in a folk costume consisting of a long dress with an apron tied around the waist, a long sleeved white blouse and a white cap worn on the head. When her turn to introduce herself came, she presented herself as a citizen of Sweden and said a few words about the country, extolling its beauty and the warmth of its people. Just as she was about to finish off however to give way to the next student, she tore off the costume she was wearing to bare a revealing white sequined bikini panties and dangling stars to cover her breasts. She proceeded to address the audience again inviting them to come to Sweden “where prostitution is legal.” The audience went wild, with the high school boys hooting and whistling as a sashaying McLean exited the stage. An investigation into the conduct of McLean was made and it turned out that the teacher who was in charge of the show never had knowledge that McLean was concealing a different costume behind her Swedish folk costume and utter the remarks or act the way she did and turn the solemn celebration of the UN Day into a striptease act. The school reprimanded McLean and suspended her not only from school but from participating in all other activities that would involve in getting McLean to the stage for that school year on the ground of disruptive behavior. McLean’s father as her guardian ad litem, filed a case against the school protesting its decision before the US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. The District Court granted relief to McLean on the ground that the school’s actuation was a violation of the First Amendment or the freedom of speech and expression and that preventing her from participating in school activities allowing her access to center stage is a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment on the due process clause portion. The Calhoun County School thereafter brought the present appeal to the Court of Appeal which however sustained the district court’s decision. Hence, the school brought this judicial review to this court. The Deliberation With the recent forced resignation of Justice David Hackett Souter, the Supreme Court Justices and I, with Chief Justice John Roberts and the seven other associate justices, proceeded with the deliberation of the case. The Court allowed the appeal of this case considering that it involves a constitutional issue and hence within the ambit of its jurisdiction. Inside the Court’s chamber, the Justices and I started deliberating the case immediately after the oral arguments of the parties’ counsels. Together with the parties’ briefs and the oral arguments, we considered the merit of the case. At stake here is the constitutionality of the acts of the Calhoun County School. More precisely, the First and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution were invoked by McLean while the school raises its right and the obligation to discipline its students. The First Amendment to the Constitution states that that “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.” On the other hand the pertinent portion of the Fourteenth Amendment on due process clause states that “[…] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of laws […].” After each SC justice took their flanking the large conference table inside the Supreme Court Conference Room, and the door locked behind us to ensure that no one enters the room, the Chief Justice began the deliberation by stating the facts of the McLean case. He ended this by making his conclusion which is to reverse the CA decision. He then called on Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, the most senior of all Associate Justices, to give his views of the case. Associate Justice Stevens gave his view and concluded that he was for reversing the ruling of the District Court. Calling each of the rest of the Associate Justices one by one in order of seniority, the Associate Justices gave their views on the case at hand. Associate Justice Scala opted to sustain the decision of the CA; Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy likewise thought the Court should reverse the CA; Associate Justice Clarence Thomas said the CA decision’s should be sustained; Associate Ruth Bader Ginsburg was for the reversal; Associate Stephen Beyer was for the maintenance of the decision; Associate Justice Samuel Alito was for the reversal, and I, being the newest addition to the US Supreme Court, gave the last statement which was to reverse the ruling of the CA. Chief Justice Roberts then declared the majority decision to be a reversal of the CA ruling which means that the school was well within its rights to subject the act of McLean to disciplinary sanction, including prohibiting her from taking part in school activities for the rest of the school year. The gist of the issue among the justices was that notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech, schools have the right to discipline their students to shape them to become better and productive citizens of the country. For those who decided to sustain the ruling of the CA, the most important issue was the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech and its inviolability. The minority stressed that McLean had no prior knowledge that her conduct and speech during the school celebration of the UN Day would be made subject to disciplinary action on the ground that it would constitute disruptive behavior. In this case, according to the minority, there was a denial of due process because this would entail giving the party prior notice that her such acts would be made subject to sanctions. But more importantly, according to the minority, the right to free speech is inviolable and the fact that a student is involved and is within the school grounds does not imply that they shed their basic rights at the school gates. Citing Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 US 1, the minority asserted that free speech imply the tolerance not only of speech that are sympathetic and acceptable to many but even speech that may not be pleasant and even tasteless to some. The majority, on the other hand, largely depended on the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bethel School District No. 403 v Fraser 478 US 675. The majority asserted that it is within the right, and even the obligation, of the school to discipline their own students to prepare them to become socially acceptable members of society. The conduct of McLean which was largely disruptive of an otherwise solemn school celebration and her comments about another country were inappropriate and not suited to the occasion and place. The comments, innuendoes and actions were insulting not only to another country but to the school which expected a solemn and formal celebration of the occasion. Likewise, the audience composed mostly of young high school students should not have been exposed to such kind of an out-of-place demonstration. The next step of the SCOTUS was to assign the writing of the majority opinion. Since the Chief Justice was with the majority opinion, he was well within his right to take the responsibility to write the majority opinion but instead he assigned the writing of the opinion to me, an offer which I readily and gratefully accepted, it being my first assignment and opportunity to write a SC opinion. Justice Thomas informed the group that he will be writing a separate concurring opinion while Justice Scala likewise notified everybody that he will be writing his dissenting opinion. It turned out however, that the initial conference on the case did not end the discussion on the subject. Several conferences were held afterwards and Associate Justice Beyer changed his mind and opted instead to overturn the decision of the CA, a reversion of his earlier decision. One or two more justices changed their minds in the next weeks but however were prevailed upon by the wrangling and maneuvers of senior justices. The tone, direction and analysis of the majority opinion changed and waiver at one time or another but in the end, the opinion began to take a firmer and decided stand. When all issues regarding the case had already been resolved and there was a clear picture of everything, I was ready to write the first draft of the decision. I understand that the usual procedure was for the justices’ clerks to actually write the first draft of the opinion under the close supervision and instructions from the justices, but this being my first assignment; I didn’t want to relegate the responsibility of writing this very important task to my clerk. In the first place, although I have extensive notes on the case not only during the oral arguments but during all the SC justices’ conferences, yet there must have been something which my note-taking missed which I knew by heart and which the clerk will surely miss. In writing the majority opinion, I made extensive references to previous Supreme Court decisions which tackled the same subject in the past. These cases were likewise discussed during the conferences ands were used by the Justices in justifying their decisions to either reverse or sustain the ruling of the Court of Appeal. Among these cases were Bethel School District No. 403 v Fraser 478 US 675, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969), Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Conclusion The Supreme Court, the court of last resort, plays a very important role in the country’s legal system considering that its decisions constitute case law and become part of the law of the land in the same manner that legislative enactments are. However not all cases are considered justiciable before the highest court of the country but only cases which are clearly within the ambit of its jurisdiction. One clear instance is when a case involves an issue whose constitutionality is in question. Cases in the SCOTUS are decided on the basis of the briefs of the parties and the oral arguments of the parties’ counsels. The justices of the SCOTUS, led by the Chief Justice cloistered themselves inside the Court’s conference room at the exclusion of every one else, including their clerks, to deliberate on cases. The Chief Justice puts the facts of the case forward, makes known his views and calls on each and every one of the Associate Justices, in order of seniority, to give their own views and reasons for their decisions. The Chief Justice then declares the majority opinion and assigns the writing of the majority opinion to any of the justices although if his view coincides with the majority, he can write it himself. The decision is refined in subsequent conferences allowing for changes in decisions before the decision is actually publicly announced. Works Cited Abrams v. US, 250 US 610. LII. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0250_0616_ZO.html Bethel School District No. 403 et al v Fraser, A Minor, et al 478 US 675. Justia. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_84_1667/argument/ Supreme Court of the United States. MSN-Encarta. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574302_3/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States.html Supreme Court of the United States. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/index.html Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 US 1. Justia. http://supreme.justia.com/us/393/503/case.html The United States Constitution. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) Read More