Landmake Court Cases Essay

In March 5,1857, after deliberating for several months, Chief Justice Roger Taney issued the ruling. The Court determined, by a majority of seven to two, that Dred Scott and his family were still slaves. It stated that even if, the Scotts had traveled into free territory, moving back to St.Louis had made them slaves once more. However, The Court decided to go further and addressed other issues regarding slavery and blacks. On citizenship, the Court decided no black could ever be a citizen, in Taney's own words "slaves nor their descendants, whether... free or not, were then acknowledged as part of the people [citizens]"# According to this, Scott was only property , therefore he did not have the right to file suit, and as a result was never free. The Court also decided to rule the

In Anthony Lewis’ Freedom for the Thought That We Hate, the author explores the history of the first amendment in the constitution, and goes through multiple examples of instances in American history where our true freedom of speech was questioned.

“In 1847, Dred Scott first went to trial to sue for his freedom, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom).” “While the immediate issue in this case was Dred Scott’s status, the court also had the opportunity to rule on the question of slavery in the territories, (Appleby et all, 446-447).” One of the main issues of this case was that the justices were trying to settle a political problem rather than being completely fair in their decisions. Dred lost the first trial but was granted a second trial. The next year the Missouri Supreme Court decided that the case should be retried, (Dred Scott’s fight for freedom). In 1850, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County

　　　　Slavery was at the root of the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Dred Scott sued his master to obtain freedom for himself and his family. His argument was that he had lived in a territory where slavery was illegal; therefore he should be considered a free man. Dred Scott was born a slave in Virginia around 1800. Scott and his family were slaves owned by Peter Blow and his family. He moved to St. Louis with them in 1830 and was sold to John Emerson, a military doctor. They went to Illinois and the Wisconsin territory where the Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibited slavery. Dred Scott married and had two

One opponent to the clear and present danger test thought that a balancing view of free speech destroyed freedom. Instead he proposed another approach to the First Amendment, called the absolutist view of free speech in which people may never be punished for what they say but they may be punished for the place, time, or way in which they say it. For example, someone might be charged with disturbing the peace for using a loudspeaker to broadcast a speech at 4:00 in the morning, but the speaker would face no charges for the content of the speech (Cornell, 2006).

Rachel vs. Walker Case which states that if a slave returns to Missouri and is not owned as Dred Scott did there

Sanford was another hot political issue. Dred Scott and his wife were taken to a free state by their master, and the ruling on this case stated that Scott was still legally bound to his master and must remain a slave. This decision was based on three main factors. The first factor was that Scott was not a citizen and could not sue in Federal court. The second factor was that it was unconstitutional for Congress to outlaw slavery in a territory. The last factor stated that although Scott and his family were heading in and out of Free states, it did not affect their standing as slaves.

In 1846, a slave living in Missouri named Dred Scott, sued for his freedom on the basis that he had lived for a total of seven years in territories that were closed to slavery. Scott's owner had been an army doctor named John Emerson. Emerson's position had required him to move several times in a relatively short amount of time. During his time with Emerson, Scott had lived in the state of Illinois, which was

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

In the March of 1857 Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in a free state for many years, came before the Supreme Court to argue that he was entitled to emancipation. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that no black

The NYU Press published this book by John Denvir in May 2010. This particular chapter speaks about the First Amendment of a person’s right to free speech. It talks about the history of the First Amendment, and the fact that before the free speech was an act all citizens had the right to practice, the US Government would often use national security as grounds to persecute certain individuals, especially in the time of the Cold War.

The far reaching circular we now have permits the thriving of first amendment with damages as very much requested society should not allow. Despite the fact that scorn discourse is portrayed by viewed height absolutists as a private demonstration of expression that ought to be shielded from government controls and authorizes. When we comprehend the mischief that contempt discourse may deliver, we are in a superior position to get a handle on the contention for the enactment that confines it.

When the Bill of Rights was first passed it was intended to protect individual rights so that Congress couldn’t freely make laws that hurt the citizens of a state. The first Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech…” putting a limit on government power but when our founding fathers were creating the Bill of Rights they did not realize what giving the people full freedom to speak meant. Years later when America was vulnerable to a war with France people started speaking out in favor of the French so in 1798 President John Adams passed the Sedition Act. According to the Constitutional Rights Foundation, the Sedition Act was “a law restricting freedom of speech” because at that time they needed the people to stop going against the government and trust them to protect their rights but instead the people started speaking out in a harsh

took part in this type of protest. On December 16 - 17 three Tinker siblings

While Freedom of Speech protects forms of expression based on one’s opinions, as long as it does not cause harm, there are a few forms that are no longer considered protected under this clause. For example, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) was a defining moment that found “fighting words” to be unprotected by the free speech clause as they tend to inflict injury or breach the peace. Walter Chaplinsky was passing out pamphlets on a public sidewalk that caused people to gather around. When a city marshall, who had already warned Chaplinsky about the disturbance and was approaching again, Chaplinsky addressed the marshall as a “God damned racketeer” and “a damned fascist.” He was arrested and convicted of violating the breach of peace (Chaplinsky). Despite Chaplinsky feeling that this conviction violating his First Amendment, The Supreme Court held that it did not and that there are “well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech” that fall outside of constitutional protection (Chaplinsky). Consequently, this case is showcasing that not every category of speech is constitutionally protected just because of the First Amendment. Hate