The Importance of the First Amendment to the Citizens of the United States - Case Study Example

First Amendment case- Opinion one, overturning the expulsion The importance of the First Amendment to the citizens of the United s can be seen throughout its history as a nation. The amendment itself reads as follows, 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. (First Amendment) What is important to note is that while this amendment grants the rights to protest, it does clarify that it is to be accomplished in a peaceable manner. The actions of the group of Teaching Fellows and Monique can be viewed as having the intent to cause a civil disturbance and promote violence being done to another. In Virginia v. Black et al. certiorari to the supreme court of Virginia, no.01-1107 (2003) Justice O’Connor announced the following, “In this case we consider whether the Commonwealth of Virginias statute banning cross burning with intent to intimidate a person or group of persons" violates the First Amendment. Va. Code Ann. §18.2-423 (1996). We conclude that while a State, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional in its current form.” (Virginia v. Black 1) As a result of this prior decision made the appropriate decision at this time would seem to support the actions of the defendant and while the use of an effigy burning may be seen as a threat it does not by itself constitute a threat to said individual. The action of effigy burning is an approximation and does not promote violence in and of it. Additionally the burning of an effigy remains a political act and in concert with the prior decision in (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397) which held that the desecration of the flag at this time while in violation of local state law is not in fact a violation of the First Amendment, meaning the conviction of Ms. Monique shall be overturned as a result as the law of the land is the Constitution and as such the actions taken by Ms. Monique are in line with the allowances for protest that are outlined in the First Amendment. Additionally in the prior case the as with this current case the individual has been convicted based on their engagement in expressive conduct and while the defendant may have disturbed the peace, they did not effectively violate the First Amendment. The expulsion should therefore be overturned. First Amendment, "United States Constitution, Bill of Rights." Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute. N.p., 2011. Web. 29 Mar 2011. http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights#amendmenti TEXAS v. JOHNSON, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), "491 U.S. 397 TEXAS v. JOHNSON CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS No. 88-155. Argued March 21, 1989 Decided June 21, 1989." Find Law for legal professionals. N.p., 2011. Web. 29 Mar 2011. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=491&invol=397 VIRGINIA v. BLACK, “Virginia v. BLACK et al. certiorari to the supreme court of Virginia No. 01-1107. Argued December 11, 2002--Decided April 7, 2003." Find Law for legal professionals. N.p., 2011. Web. 29 Mar 2011. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=01-1107 Opinion two, supporting the expulsion The Teaching Fellow Ms. Monique engaged in an act of civil disobedience that resulted in the State University President Max Piker feeling that his life had been threatened. While the initial action was meant as a symbolic statement and that is protected by the First Amendment it should be noted that threats or intimidation are not. The First Amendment specifically protects peaceable protest however, does not protect protest in which there is used threats and intimidation. In using an effigy that was made to resemble Mr. Piker it becomes clear that Ms. Monique was presenting a visible threat against him. The question now that must be answered is whether the right to speech is more important than the right to security. In the Supreme Court Case of Watts versus United States the decision was held regarding an individual who had allegedly made a comment that could be construed as a threat at a political debate. The statement made was that the defendant would if drafted want to get L.B.J. in his sights first, Lyndon B. Johnson (L.B.J.) was then president of the United States. (Watts v. United States) The court did not convict the defendant as the defendant was within his rights to speak as protected by the First Amendment. Additionally the claim for First Amendment protection was forfeited in the case, Porter versus Ascension Parish School Board where a young man was removed from the Ascension Parish School district and he was required to enroll in an alternative school. The young man, Adam Porter aged 14 had drawn a picture of the school he attended and had written obscenities and racial remarks directed at the staff of the school. This picture had been drawn at his home, and almost two years before it was discovered and action taken. The court did not find a First Amendment issue with upholding the schools decision to remove him from the school. (Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board) This however, does not defend the action of the threat and while Ms. Monique is protected by the First Amendment her promotion of violence against Mr. Piker is still actionable under the given statute that Ms. Monique agreed to upon employment. That statute stating, However members of the University community must refrain from personal attacks directed at any other member. This written and agreed upon statute while giving cause for a potential issue regarding the First Amendment is one that was agreed upon mutually upon enrollment into the University. The initial claim by the defendant regarding the First Amendment therefore while valid in some respects should not be upheld given the obvious threat to the life and safety of Mr. Piker. The expulsion should remain in effect at this time. PORTER v. ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, "Adam PORTER, et al., Plaintiffs, Adam Porter, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASCENSION PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al., Defendants-Appellees. No.  04-30162. -- December 10, 2004." Find Law for legal professionals. N.p., 2011. Web. 29 Mar 2011. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-5th-circuit/1053526.html WATTS v. UNITED STATES, "394 U.S. 705 WATTS v. UNITED STATES. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT. No. 1107, Misc. Decided April 21, 1969." Find Law for legal professionals. N.p., 2011. Web. 29 Mar 2011. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=394&invol=705 Second Amendment case- Merits of Mrs. Calhoun’s position The Second Amendment states the following, a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment is an important part of the Constitution in that it provides for the common defense as well as the individuals defense. Understanding the need for self-protection becomes necessary as a result of and given the recent Supreme Court rulings in support of this Amendment for personal reasons the argument made by Mrs. Calhoun is sufficient and correct. There is also the less used doctrine of competing harms or doctrine of necessity which further allows one to break the law in the rare circumstances where following the law will cause more harm than good. In this case, the possibility of wild animal or human assault is raised with regards to the situation they are in; as a result it would be expedient to provide for defense. Additionally her position can be seen from a purely logical stance, in that it is impossible for the rangers to protect every person or animal at any given moment and the possibility of the rangers being able to prevent an attack should one occur is small. Her further arguments regarding the use of firearms by the individual for self-defense purposes alone and basing that in the recent court opinions is also well founded. Especially given that current response times on average for all law enforcement across the United States leaves a large window of success in the event the family is assaulted by an animal or human. In the case of District of Columbia v. Heller the decision held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to defense by possession of a firearm within their home when in federal enclaves. (District of Columbia v. Heller (No. 07-290) in this case the tent represents a domicile for the family, and because the park is a national park the decision would apply in this case specifically as long as Mrs. Calhoun ensured that the firearm remained in the tent. Unfortunately, this is not something that can be easily followed up on once it is allowed. Additionally, the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago the court further upheld the right of the individual to keep and bear arms as something protected by the Second Amendment and upheld by the Fourteenth Amendment as a result of the due process clause. (McDonald v. City of Chicago) However, the use of this case would not seem to be necessary given the nature of the current issue at hand. The argument is being made regarding federal land and not state land. Mrs. Calhoun’s argument is sound based on the accepted definitions of the Second Amendment and the case clarifying that amendment regarding federal land in District of Columbia v. Heller. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290), "SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008." Cornell University Law School, Legal Information Institute. N.p., 2011. Web. 29 Mar 2011. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html McDonald v. City of Chicago, "McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 3020 (2010." Www. Supremecourt.gov. N.p., 2011. Web. 29 Mar 2011. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf Read More