How the Supreme Courts Decision Continues to Affect the Rights of American Citizens Today - Case Study Example

Introduction This paper deals with cases that are related to three of the provisions of the first amendment. It further evaluates the rights and the responsibilities that the constitution gives an American citizen. There is also explanation of the reasons as to why each case needed to be heard and interpreted by the Supreme Court. This paper also explains how the Supreme Court’s decision in each case continues to affect the rights of American citizens today. First amendment First amendment forms part of the bill of rights in United States. This amendment generally forbids the making of laws by the congress in United States that affects freedom of religion and speech. Other aspects that are also included are overall freedom of press, individual’s rights to petition and assembling peaceably. Analysis shows that courts in United States interpreted these rights on a more broad aspect. They extended the rights to include issues concerning branches of the judiciary and the executive. (Berns, 1976) Rights and responsibilities of American citizen Looking at the American constitution, it gives an American citizen various rights and responsibilities. The constitution gives an American citizen the freedom of speech. This means that an American citizen has the right to speak out his or her mind. There is also right to press. In this case an American citizen has the right to publish or even air his or her views through the press. (Chafee, 1941) This is as long as the message is not defaming or negatively affecting other people or individual’s rights. Another right for American citizens that is constitutional based is regarding assembly. This implies that every American citizen has the right to assemble and even hold a public meeting as long as the meeting is licensed by the relevant authorities. There is also the right of every American citizen being in a position of petitioning his or her grievances to the government. (Berns, 1976) They also have the right to belief and association. This is according to the constitution too. In this case an American citizen has the right associate with any religious group that he or she wishes. In addition to this, a citizen of America can also choose to believe in anything he or she wishes. That is the reason as to why there are many religions like Buddhists, Christians and even Atheists. American citizens have the overall responsibility of informing relevant authorities concerning any individual or organization that infringes upon any of their rights that are constitutional based. This has to be carried out in accordance with the law and through the right channel. For instance any individual whose rights and freedom of warship has been infringed can take the matter to court. (Corwin, 1978) Near v. Minnesota 1931 This is one of the cases that are related to the first amendment. In this case, Jay Near started publishing a Saturday magazine. He was described as being against many religious churches. These included the catholic and the Semitic churches. He was also against labor and the black people. (Emerson, 1970) His newspaper highlighted that the city was being ruled by gangs who were Jewish. It also targeted Mr. Olson Floyd who later on filed a complaint against Mr. Near. This was in relation to publishing a paper that was quite defamatory in nature. Oleson said that the Saturday Press had a tone that was against the Semitic religion. This to Oleson was an outright violation of the law in United States. The Supreme Court’s decision The Supreme Court’s decision concerning Mr. Near’s case of 1931 was as follows. First of all the court recognized the press’s freedom form the overall restraints on any publication whatsoever. Analysis further shows that the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had actually violated the United States constitution in relation to the first amendment. This was through publication of a malicious newspaper that was defaming Oleson and also the Semitics. This case needed to be heard in the Supreme Court since this court is the one that dealt with any violations to the first amendment in United States. (Berns, 1976) Cantwell v. Connecticut This case involves the Connecticut statue. In this scenario any person with any charitable or religious intentions had to get a license. This was a type of law where the secretary had to analyze the situation before issuing out the certificate. Cantwell Newton was arrested in the year 1938 together with his sons because they contravened the Connecticut stature. (Berns, 1976) They did not get a certificate from the public’s secretary that would allow them to get funds from the citizens. This man belonged to the Jehovah Witness church. It is recorded that Cantwell and his two sons went from house to house, door to door collecting funds. They were so much against the catholic faith such that they carried along literature that was defaming the church. Such literature was a book that was titled ‘Enemies’. Later on, father and sons were arrested because they infringing against the law concerning the breach of peace. They were also arrested because they did not honor the statue by getting a license since they collected funds on a religious basis. According to the Cantwells, they did not require the license because they thought that no one had the right to determine whether the Jehovah Witness is a religion or not. This case needed to be herd in the Supreme Court since Cantwell’s claimed that they had not breached the law according to the fourteenth amendment. At the same time they had been arrested for not getting a license for their religious initiatives. This necessitated the Supreme Court to intervene and carry out the ruling of the case. Supreme Court’s decision Cantwell’s case was protected by the first amendments. This was according to the court. According to Justice Owens, the necessitation of someone getting license like in Cantwell’s case is generally putting a burden on the constitutional liberties. The Supreme Court ruled out the case concerning Cantwell v. Connecticut as follows. The Supreme Court in United Sates decision held that enforcement the first amendment’s overall protection of any free exercises that are religious based. This is concerning states rather than the actions that are federal based. (Berns, 1976) Dejonge v. Oregon 1937 This is also one of the cases that were handled by the supreme courts of United States. The Supreme Court asserted that freedom of assembly is very important in the first amendment. In the Court’s ruling, Dejonge was found to have the overall right of organizing his party that was communist in nature. The court also ruled out that Dejonge also had the right of speaking in these meetings. (Berns, 1976) This was the court’s ruling though Dejonge had the party had campaigned for change in political alignment. This case had to be handled by the Supreme Court since Dejonge had been accused of holding and speaking in public meetings for his party that was communist in nature. Supreme Court’s decision and effect on American citizen’s rights today The Supreme Court’s decision in the cases illustrated above somehow in one way or another affected the rights that American citizens have today. In the case concerning Cantwell versus Connecticut 1940, analysis shows that before this there was uncertainty as to whether the first amendment hindered any religious person against restrictions from the state. This is also including other local governmental branches within the state. The Supreme Court’s decision concerning the Cantwell’s case clarified that the first amendment protected practitioners that were religious based from such restrictions emanating from the state. After the Supreme Court’s ruling on this case, a clause concerning free exercise was incorporated in the first amendment. (Berns, 1976) This clause protects religious individuals and groups from any external intrusion that may emanate from the state. This Clause was incorporated in the year 1947.This decision still has effects on rights that the American citizens have today. It is now very clear that American citizen’s rights of freedom concerning their religion are highly strong up to date. (Chafee, 1941) Near v. Minnesota 1931case, the Supreme Court ruled that though there is freedom of press; one cannot publish articles that infringe on other’s rights. This may be through publishing defamatory articles etc. In this case, the ruling affected the rights of American citizens up to date. This means that though every citizen has the right to press or publish any material, it has to respect individual rights of citizens. This also includes organizations. So whatever is published should be in relation to the law and if not, then the offence is punishable in relation to the standards of the same law. (Berns, 1976) There was also the case of Dejonge versus Oregon 1937. In this case the Supreme Court ruled out that Dejonge had the right to assemble his party and address the people in public. This has effects on rights of American citizens to date. This is because they still have the right to assemble and speak in public meetings. This is so long as the meetings are licensed and do not also affect other people’s rights negatively. (Corwin, 1978) Conclusion In conclusion, the first amendment is part of the bill of rights that is found in United States. This amendment generally prohibits the congress from making laws that affects people’s rights to freedom of speech, press and religion. Also included is the American citizens’ right of assembly. There are various cases related to provisions of first amendment that were handled by supreme courts in United States. They include Near v. Minnesota 1931, Dejonge versus Oregon 1937 and Cantwell versus Connecticut 1940. The Supreme Courts ruling in all these cases had effects on the rights that are enjoyed by American citizens today. There are various constitutional rights and responsibilities that are found in the American constitution. They include rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, religion. All American citizens have the responsibilities of respecting other people’s rights and also reporting to relevant authorities those that infringe on their rights. Read More