Nixon Vs Houston

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that Congress shall make no law “abridging the freedom of speech” U.S. Const. amend. I. A party may be liable

fear of a disturbance is not enough to overcome free speech, Terminiello v. Chicago. What

The first amendment, which is considered the right to freedom of speech, is a misconception to many. Not all citizens, but some, think that because of the first amendment; they can say whatever they want. Although citizens of the United States have the right to freedom of speech, this freedom of speech is viewed differently by others. Which leads to confusion as to what can be said and what cannot be said. Both court cases: Tinker v. Des Moines, and Bethel v. Fraser involved the confusion and misunderstanding of this first amendment.

“Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” (Jacobus 93). Just like the Freedom of Religion there are limitations placed on the Freedom of Speech so that other people’s rights aren’t compromised. For example, people are not allowed to present true threats, or “fighting words” to another person. This restriction was put into play in the court case of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire. The Court ruled that “fighting words, by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace and may be punished consistent with the First Amendment.” (Ruane 3-4). In this case if someone was to use “fighting words” which is their perceived freedom of speech, it would not only violate the law, it could violate someone’s freedom of pursue life, liberty, and happiness. With this, we can see that freedom is not always as it

Article III, Section II of The Constitution states, “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers or Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction…” The Supreme Court is where the nation’s most controversial cases end up, and where decisions that impact the future of America are made. Every year, only about 80 cases are heard by the Supreme Court (“U.S. Supreme Court,” 2016). Each case meets a set of four criteria, all of which must be met in order to be considered by the Supreme Court justices. The first, and most important, criteria is a circuit split. This means that there was a serious conflict of law in the lower courts and the Supreme Court feels that this case is detrimental to the law (“Supreme Court Criteria,” 2016). The second of the four is that it must be a highly important case to the American future, such as U.S. v. Nixon on the Watergate scandal, Roe v. Wade on abortion, and Bush v. Gore on the close presidential race of 2000. The third requirement is that a justice is relatively interested in the case. They want the controversial, detrimental cases that will be ambitious. The case is to be highly considered if in the lower courts, a supreme court decision that has already been decided upon was denied. (“How Does the U.S.,” 2013). If all four criteria are met, then the case is fair game in the eyes of the Supreme Court justices.

In 2005 NYPD Detective, first grade, James E. Griffith called internal affairs to report he was being pressured by a fellow officer to lie and take the blame during an internal inquiry for the mishandling of a homicide investigation by his unit (Goldstein, 2012). Another detective and union official claimed in his deposition that Griffin was a rat because he went to internal affairs instead of the union (Marzulli, 2013). According to the United States District Court Eastern District of New York’s memorandum of decision the retaliation was immediate, included adverse personnel actions and continued though out his career in different units until Detective Griffith was effectively forced to retire due to the harassment in 2009 (James Griffin

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

“A decade ago, Hempstead’s only full-time black police officer sued, alleging that Chief Smith had dismissed him on a trumped-up charge after he complained about his supervisor’s racial slurs. An African-American couple also sued, alleging that Chief Smith had turned them away when they reported that a white man had assaulted

One of these incidents was the Biltmore fire in April 1969 where a fire broke out in multiple floors of a hotel endangering the then senator Ronald Reagan whom was giving a speech. Among the accused to start the fire was Carlos Montes. Carlos Denied any wrongdoing and claims he was not present and is being framed. He and the Brown Berets were under constant surveillance and often harassed by the police even after the charges were dropped. Carlos’ declaration from the court, documents his testimony of the harassment for official purposes and record keeping in later stages of this court case. This being a testimony does have some biases from the author. Due to the author’s nature of being an activist, he has strong biases against the police. This can clearly be seen in the testimony where he speaks out against police officers. This bias can be attributed to his past experiences with police officers including the harassment from Sergeant Ceballos when he told Montes “I’m either going to kill you or see that you spend the rest of your life behind bars.” By society standards this type of behavior is considered unacceptable, if true. Although what is valued and considered normal by society changes over time, this topic however did not undergo much change. Today as of the time of this writing there have been cases of police corruption and harassment against underrepresented group such as black people. One of the most ritual examples

A landmark Supreme Court case is one in which a precedence is set and there is an impact on society. There are many reasons for the importance of landmark cases and the studying of such cases. Some of these reasons are to study how the judicial branch works, try to understand how decisions made in the judicial branch affects laws and everyday life, and predict how current issues and cases will be affected by past decisions (The Judicial Learning Center, 2012). There are many examples of Supreme Court cases that are considered to be a landmark, but one example is Texas vs. Johnson.

Garrison v. Louisiana was argued on April 22, 1964 and was decided on November 23, 1964. In the case the plaintiff was Jim Garrison and the responder was Louisiana. Garrison accused the judges of their inadequate management and was charged violating the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute. The main issue was the right to freedom of expression. The question asked was, “Does the Louisiana Criminal Defamation Statute unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment’s protection of the freedom of speech?”(Oyez). The amendment that was being violated in the trial was the First Amendment.

The district court dismissed his claim, but the court of appeals reversed the decision, noting that an individual’s personal appearance is part of the individual liberty, which is protected by the Fourteenth amendment. The court required the police department to provide a legitimate public need in order to regulate personal

Harris sued in District Court alleging a violation of his Fourth Amendment Rights in that Officer Scott had used excessive force to terminate the chase. Harris “claimed qualified immunity as a government official acting in [a] official capacity” (Oyez, n.d., p.1). The District Court and 11th Circuit Court denied his claim. However the US Supreme Court used the balancing of interests test and in

In the past, the Rule of Law for the First Amendment was that American citizens had the right not to speak (West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)), right for students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)), the right to use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages (Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)), the right

The 1st amendment, to many of us, separates this country from all others. Within the 1st amendment is a valuable phrase: “The United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law” that abridged “the freedom of speech”(First Amendment). In Bhagwat’s