Reflections on the Judiciary
Today we are looking at eight landmark cases in our judicial system, Marbury v. Madison (1803), Swift & Co. v. The United States (1906), Schenk v. The U.S. (1919), Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954), Loving v. Virginia (1967), Roe v. Wade (1973), Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and Gonzales v. Raich (2005). I believe the best way to look at these cases is first to look at the historical context, then the actual case and the impact the decision had on the country.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)- William Marbury was a judge that was supposed to be commissioned as a federal judge but during the transition into Jefferson's presidency, he did not receive his commission. The document was signed by the previous attorney general and handed over to the incoming attorney general to formally deliver the document, however, Jefferson was against Marbury's commission and ordered his attorney general James Madison that the document not be delivered. Marbury sued to argue the actual delivery of the document was a formality and the second the document was signed his commission, his commission officially started which began the case of Marbury v. Madison.
The courts faced an issue because of whatever mandate they issued could have been ignored by the executive branch. The courts established that the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution and condemned the Jefferson administration for violation of the law. The supreme court decided that Jefferson and Madison grossly violated the rights of Marbury and to hand over the commission.
Jefferson attacked the judiciary however this decision solidified the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. This decision was made over 200 years ago but is still being debated about today on whether or no the supreme court should be the ultimate authority on the constitution. While the judiciary needs to remain a co-equal branch it leaves the supreme court without checks and balance other than the impeachment of individuals.
Swift & Co. v. The United States (1906)- The "big six" were meatpackers that created a trust agreement to not outbid each other to keep prices fixed. They cut cost by poorly packing or mislabeling food keeping a lower quality of meats on the market. This eventually led to them using their trust abilities to influence the railway industry to charge less then what they would normally charge for deliveries.
President Roosevelt caught wind of the Swift & Company trust and ordered his attorney general to sue them under the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890. Congress did not have the authority to regulate meat at the time but under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, they could stop the price fixing and open to a free market. Ultimately the courts sided with the United States the "big six" had no right to fix prices as it would be unfair to consumers.
This lead to major changes on what Congress should have authority over, it was believed that it should not take a court battle to deal with all of these issues. This eventually led Congress to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906. These acts were later refined and grown into the governing agency's we have today, the FDA, FSIS, CDC, USDA, and FAS.
Schenck v. The U.S. (1919)- During the beginning of World War I at the time referred to as the "great war" the draft was enacted to bolster the army's forces. Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were members of the socialist party (more similar to the communist party) were strongly against the United States involvement in the war. Because of their feeling about the war, Charles Schenck as secretary of the party ordered anti-draft leaflets be sent out to men of service age. This led to over 15,000 letters being mailed out stating the urgency of denying their draft and refusing to fight. They compared the draft to involuntary labor which is against the thirteenth amendment and it would unconstitutional to serve in the draft. Because of these letters, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were arrested and appealed their arrest on the grounds it violated their right to free speech.
The court case was heard by the supreme court and Schneck defense cited the constitution multiple times. They believed they the war was wrong and they felt a duty to inform others that it was wrong and to force people into battle was tantamount to slavery. The supreme court rule despite the arguments that the arrest was not a violation of their constitutional rights under the Espionage Act of 1917.
The supreme court recognized that freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty on which the United States was built upon however during times of war that right may be curbed. Wartime puts the United States in a vulnerable position and anything that can cause direct harm to the United States as a nation supersedes the rights of the individual.
This is where the famous saying came from to explain the court's decision to the public "shouting fire in a crowded theater." This has been one of the few limitations on freedom of speech in the United States and has served as a landmark precedent for "imminent lawless action." This is why many hate speech is still legal today despite 18 U.S. Code § 249. Hate crime acts if the danger is not imminent such as preventing a draft during a time of war then it is legal.
Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954)- During the 1950s the United States was operating on the separate but equal principle, a school could remain segregated so long as they are equal to one another. Oliver Brown a black man was forced to travel a significant distance with his daughter Linda Brown to go to an inferior school when there was an all-white school nearby. He applied for his daughter to go to the nearby all-white school and was denied solely on the bases that his daughter Linda Brown was black. So Oliver Brown filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all segregated black against the Board of Education.
Brown argued that the separate but equal policy was a violation of the 14th amendments equal protection clause. The district court acknowledged the separate but equal rule was detrimental to the colored community and gave them a sense of inferiority but upheld the ruling. The cases were appealed then combined to the supreme court as the landmark Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Eventually after one of the justices had died there was a unanimous decision that the doctrine of separate but equal was indeed a violation of the 14th amendment. As a result, Oliver Brown, his daughter Linda Brown and the class they represent were "deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”
The outcome of this was not actually impactful contrary to popular belief, this case was made to set precedent but didn't actually explain how things were supposed to be changed. It was a symbolic catalyst to the civil right movement however Brown v. Board of Education II actually enacted change. This change was met with heavy resistance and sparked such controversies such as the little rock nine however without an actual guideline on integration politician would have done everything in the power to prevent it.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)- The love story of Richard and Mildred Loving is a tale about civil liberties being taken away based on race. These two fell in love and wanted to get married but were denied on the bases of anti-miscegenation laws which stated interracial couples cannot be wed. Richard was a white man construction worker and Mildred was a mixed African and Native American woman so their marriage was illegal under this doctrine. They went to Washington D.C. to get married where interracial marriage was legal however after they came home to Virginia they were arrested under the anti-miscegenation doctrine. After serving a year in jail and being kicked out of the state of Virginia they were forced to live in Washington D.C. where after four years in 1963 Mildred asked Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for help which he referred to the ACLU.
They began by asking for their conviction and barring from the state vacated from the sentencing judge which refused. After appeals, it made its way before the supreme court, on the basis that it was a violation the of 14th amendment. The state of Virginia argued that interracial marriage is tantamount to incest and bestiality and the state has the right to create health and welfare laws. In the end, the Supreme Court agreed that it was a violation of the lovings 14th amendment rights and rule to vacate the lovings criminal sentence and repeal anti-interracial marriage laws in 14 states.
This opened the door for interracial marriage across the United States opening the door for more equal civil rights for the black community. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state.”
Roe v. Wade (1973)- Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey better known under her pseudonym Jane Roe was a Texas resident that wanted to terminate her pregnancy. At the time the only was a woman could legally have an abortion is if her life was in imminent danger because of the pregnancy. Jane Roe believed this was unjust and appealed her case to the state which was denied.
She made her case up to the supreme court where she argued that it was a violation of her 14th amendment right to privacy. The supreme court ruled in a split 7-2 decision using Griswold v. Connecticut as precedent a woman's right to privacy fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th amendment.
This led to a major controversy which is still debated about today between religious groups, political parties, civil rights groups, and legal scholars. The argument arose that according to the constitution it is a states constitution responsibility to protect the life of its citizens. Many believe once the fetus is created it is a citizen that deserves the same protections as anyone else, abortions are a violation of the states rights to protect as well as fetus's right to health and welfare. The other side of the argument is that the rights of women should not be debated regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. a woman should not have her medical privacy violated and dictated by others when it constitutionally should be her choice. While both make legally sound arguments at the moment the Roe v. Wade decision the basis on which laws across the United States are built.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)- This was a campaign finance case that argued the amounts politicians can or can not spend on a campaign election. In 1974 the Federal Election Campaign Act or FECA was enacted to prevent the amount spent on a single campaign, this was to prevent the overly wealthy to purchase who they want to win. This would give an unfair advantage to the ultra-wealthy to influence campaigns through heavy spending. This would also limit the amount politician can spend on campaigns as well to avoid wasting taxpayer funds. U.S. Senator James L. Buckley sued U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy the author of the FECA on the basis that it was unconstitutional.
Senator Buckley argued that to limit funding is to limit speech and setting limits on speech is a violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Senator McCarthy argued that politicians should be chosen on the same field and it should not be that the person with the most money has the most votes. He believed that voters should be able to make the most informed decision by viewing each candidate not who has the most donors.
The supreme court decided both sides had merit and created a decision that could protect constitutional rights but still protect from unfair influence. The court upheld the limits contributions to candidates to prevent individuals from unfairly influencing the politician. The court upheld incidental expenses for volunteers and individual total contributions to all candidates and committees per year. The supreme court struck down the limits on individual and candidate expenditures agreeing with Senator Buckley that it would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. The supreme court upheld the disclouser requirements but narrowed types of speech they could apply to protect privacy which is protected under the 14th amendment. The supreme court upheld voluntary government funding for campaigns but struck down Congress directly appointing Federal Election Commission commissioner to avoid partisan influence on campaigns.
This completely changed how campaigns are funded and run and we still follow these laws today, unfortunately, candidates find many ways to circumvent these laws as time passes. Wealthy individuals create many shell corporations simply to donate above the limits set in 1976 defeating the purpose of FECA. The news media will cover some candidates more than others which also gives them an advantage which the government can not do anything without infringing on the freedom of the press. There is an unfortunate lack of oversight and a much larger lack of consequence for individuals that violate these laws.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)- In 1996 in California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act which legalizing marijuana for medical use. This law directly conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. Regardless of state law, the DEA went into patients homes and seized prescribed marijuana.
A group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court. It was first denied by but then upheld by the 9th circuit of the appeals court on the basis that it did not substantially affect state commerce thus Congress could not regulate it. Under article
This led to the supreme court's question does Congress have the ability to affect local laws in relation to marijuana. They decided that as it could affect national commerce Congress can intervene as they deem appropriate regardless of the statues used in the ninth circuit's decision. It has not been tested however a majority of Americans have begun to accept and adopt the benefits of marijuana and it is currently legal recreationally in nine states including the District of Columbia.
Today we are looking at eight landmark cases in our judicial system, Marbury v. Madison (1803), Swift & Co. v. The United States (1906), Schenk v. The U.S. (1919), Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954), Loving v. Virginia (1967), Roe v. Wade (1973), Buckley v. Valeo (1976), and Gonzales v. Raich (2005). I believe the best way to look at these cases is first to look at the historical context, then the actual case and the impact the decision had on the country.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)- William Marbury was a judge that was supposed to be commissioned as a federal judge but during the transition into Jefferson's presidency, he did not receive his commission. The document was signed by the previous attorney general and handed over to the incoming attorney general to formally deliver the document, however, Jefferson was against Marbury's commission and ordered his attorney general James Madison that the document not be delivered. Marbury sued to argue the actual delivery of the document was a formality and the second the document was signed his commission, his commission officially started which began the case of Marbury v. Madison.
The courts faced an issue because of whatever mandate they issued could have been ignored by the executive branch. The courts established that the supreme court is the ultimate arbiter of the constitution and condemned the Jefferson administration for violation of the law. The supreme court decided that Jefferson and Madison grossly violated the rights of Marbury and to hand over the commission.
Jefferson attacked the judiciary however this decision solidified the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government. This decision was made over 200 years ago but is still being debated about today on whether or no the supreme court should be the ultimate authority on the constitution. While the judiciary needs to remain a co-equal branch it leaves the supreme court without checks and balance other than the impeachment of individuals.
Swift & Co. v. The United States (1906)- The "big six" were meatpackers that created a trust agreement to not outbid each other to keep prices fixed. They cut cost by poorly packing or mislabeling food keeping a lower quality of meats on the market. This eventually led to them using their trust abilities to influence the railway industry to charge less then what they would normally charge for deliveries.
President Roosevelt caught wind of the Swift & Company trust and ordered his attorney general to sue them under the Sherman Anti-trust Act of 1890. Congress did not have the authority to regulate meat at the time but under the Sherman Anti-trust Act, they could stop the price fixing and open to a free market. Ultimately the courts sided with the United States the "big six" had no right to fix prices as it would be unfair to consumers.
This lead to major changes on what Congress should have authority over, it was believed that it should not take a court battle to deal with all of these issues. This eventually led Congress to pass the Pure Food and Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act in 1906. These acts were later refined and grown into the governing agency's we have today, the FDA, FSIS, CDC, USDA, and FAS.
Schenck v. The U.S. (1919)- During the beginning of World War I at the time referred to as the "great war" the draft was enacted to bolster the army's forces. Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were members of the socialist party (more similar to the communist party) were strongly against the United States involvement in the war. Because of their feeling about the war, Charles Schenck as secretary of the party ordered anti-draft leaflets be sent out to men of service age. This led to over 15,000 letters being mailed out stating the urgency of denying their draft and refusing to fight. They compared the draft to involuntary labor which is against the thirteenth amendment and it would unconstitutional to serve in the draft. Because of these letters, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer were arrested and appealed their arrest on the grounds it violated their right to free speech.
The court case was heard by the supreme court and Schneck defense cited the constitution multiple times. They believed they the war was wrong and they felt a duty to inform others that it was wrong and to force people into battle was tantamount to slavery. The supreme court rule despite the arguments that the arrest was not a violation of their constitutional rights under the Espionage Act of 1917.
The supreme court recognized that freedom of speech is a fundamental liberty on which the United States was built upon however during times of war that right may be curbed. Wartime puts the United States in a vulnerable position and anything that can cause direct harm to the United States as a nation supersedes the rights of the individual.
This is where the famous saying came from to explain the court's decision to the public "shouting fire in a crowded theater." This has been one of the few limitations on freedom of speech in the United States and has served as a landmark precedent for "imminent lawless action." This is why many hate speech is still legal today despite 18 U.S. Code § 249. Hate crime acts if the danger is not imminent such as preventing a draft during a time of war then it is legal.
Brown v. Board of Ed. (1954)- During the 1950s the United States was operating on the separate but equal principle, a school could remain segregated so long as they are equal to one another. Oliver Brown a black man was forced to travel a significant distance with his daughter Linda Brown to go to an inferior school when there was an all-white school nearby. He applied for his daughter to go to the nearby all-white school and was denied solely on the bases that his daughter Linda Brown was black. So Oliver Brown filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all segregated black against the Board of Education.
Brown argued that the separate but equal policy was a violation of the 14th amendments equal protection clause. The district court acknowledged the separate but equal rule was detrimental to the colored community and gave them a sense of inferiority but upheld the ruling. The cases were appealed then combined to the supreme court as the landmark Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Eventually after one of the justices had died there was a unanimous decision that the doctrine of separate but equal was indeed a violation of the 14th amendment. As a result, Oliver Brown, his daughter Linda Brown and the class they represent were "deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.”
The outcome of this was not actually impactful contrary to popular belief, this case was made to set precedent but didn't actually explain how things were supposed to be changed. It was a symbolic catalyst to the civil right movement however Brown v. Board of Education II actually enacted change. This change was met with heavy resistance and sparked such controversies such as the little rock nine however without an actual guideline on integration politician would have done everything in the power to prevent it.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)- The love story of Richard and Mildred Loving is a tale about civil liberties being taken away based on race. These two fell in love and wanted to get married but were denied on the bases of anti-miscegenation laws which stated interracial couples cannot be wed. Richard was a white man construction worker and Mildred was a mixed African and Native American woman so their marriage was illegal under this doctrine. They went to Washington D.C. to get married where interracial marriage was legal however after they came home to Virginia they were arrested under the anti-miscegenation doctrine. After serving a year in jail and being kicked out of the state of Virginia they were forced to live in Washington D.C. where after four years in 1963 Mildred asked Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy for help which he referred to the ACLU.
They began by asking for their conviction and barring from the state vacated from the sentencing judge which refused. After appeals, it made its way before the supreme court, on the basis that it was a violation the of 14th amendment. The state of Virginia argued that interracial marriage is tantamount to incest and bestiality and the state has the right to create health and welfare laws. In the end, the Supreme Court agreed that it was a violation of the lovings 14th amendment rights and rule to vacate the lovings criminal sentence and repeal anti-interracial marriage laws in 14 states.
This opened the door for interracial marriage across the United States opening the door for more equal civil rights for the black community. Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote, “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state.”
Roe v. Wade (1973)- Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey better known under her pseudonym Jane Roe was a Texas resident that wanted to terminate her pregnancy. At the time the only was a woman could legally have an abortion is if her life was in imminent danger because of the pregnancy. Jane Roe believed this was unjust and appealed her case to the state which was denied.
She made her case up to the supreme court where she argued that it was a violation of her 14th amendment right to privacy. The supreme court ruled in a split 7-2 decision using Griswold v. Connecticut as precedent a woman's right to privacy fell within the right to privacy protected by the 14th amendment.
This led to a major controversy which is still debated about today between religious groups, political parties, civil rights groups, and legal scholars. The argument arose that according to the constitution it is a states constitution responsibility to protect the life of its citizens. Many believe once the fetus is created it is a citizen that deserves the same protections as anyone else, abortions are a violation of the states rights to protect as well as fetus's right to health and welfare. The other side of the argument is that the rights of women should not be debated regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. a woman should not have her medical privacy violated and dictated by others when it constitutionally should be her choice. While both make legally sound arguments at the moment the Roe v. Wade decision the basis on which laws across the United States are built.
Buckley v. Valeo (1976)- This was a campaign finance case that argued the amounts politicians can or can not spend on a campaign election. In 1974 the Federal Election Campaign Act or FECA was enacted to prevent the amount spent on a single campaign, this was to prevent the overly wealthy to purchase who they want to win. This would give an unfair advantage to the ultra-wealthy to influence campaigns through heavy spending. This would also limit the amount politician can spend on campaigns as well to avoid wasting taxpayer funds. U.S. Senator James L. Buckley sued U.S. Senator Eugene McCarthy the author of the FECA on the basis that it was unconstitutional.
Senator Buckley argued that to limit funding is to limit speech and setting limits on speech is a violation of his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Senator McCarthy argued that politicians should be chosen on the same field and it should not be that the person with the most money has the most votes. He believed that voters should be able to make the most informed decision by viewing each candidate not who has the most donors.
The supreme court decided both sides had merit and created a decision that could protect constitutional rights but still protect from unfair influence. The court upheld the limits contributions to candidates to prevent individuals from unfairly influencing the politician. The court upheld incidental expenses for volunteers and individual total contributions to all candidates and committees per year. The supreme court struck down the limits on individual and candidate expenditures agreeing with Senator Buckley that it would be a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. The supreme court upheld the disclouser requirements but narrowed types of speech they could apply to protect privacy which is protected under the 14th amendment. The supreme court upheld voluntary government funding for campaigns but struck down Congress directly appointing Federal Election Commission commissioner to avoid partisan influence on campaigns.
This completely changed how campaigns are funded and run and we still follow these laws today, unfortunately, candidates find many ways to circumvent these laws as time passes. Wealthy individuals create many shell corporations simply to donate above the limits set in 1976 defeating the purpose of FECA. The news media will cover some candidates more than others which also gives them an advantage which the government can not do anything without infringing on the freedom of the press. There is an unfortunate lack of oversight and a much larger lack of consequence for individuals that violate these laws.
Gonzales v. Raich (2005)- In 1996 in California voters passed the Compassionate Use Act which legalizing marijuana for medical use. This law directly conflicted with the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which banned possession of marijuana. Regardless of state law, the DEA went into patients homes and seized prescribed marijuana.
A group of medical marijuana users sued the DEA and U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft in federal district court. It was first denied by but then upheld by the 9th circuit of the appeals court on the basis that it did not substantially affect state commerce thus Congress could not regulate it. Under article
This led to the supreme court's question does Congress have the ability to affect local laws in relation to marijuana. They decided that as it could affect national commerce Congress can intervene as they deem appropriate regardless of the statues used in the ninth circuit's decision. It has not been tested however a majority of Americans have begun to accept and adopt the benefits of marijuana and it is currently legal recreationally in nine states including the District of Columbia.
Comments
Post a Comment