The Case New York Times Co. Vs. United States Essay

“The United States Constitution is the oldest written national constitution still in use” (Confederation and the Constitution, pg. 71). After more than 200 years, the Constitution is still changing to support the next generations needs. This “living document” has many different reasons that allow it to “fit in” with the new generations.

The constitution should be called a living document because, it was written in order to be changed or altered overtime. When people talk about the constitution as a living document, it basically means that it is bound to change based on the different times or societies that we all live in. Just as we discussed in class; the constitution includes willingness to ignore the parts that become irrelevant. Simply meaning what doesn’t need to be changed or amended, doesn’t need to be amended. This includes vagueness or uncertainty in places that allow for flexibility with time, and also allows for multiple interpretation as well. Earlier when the constitution was first implemented, to punish someone meant beating them or publically torturing or killing

When the colonist were drafting the constitution they couldn’t have imagined the tremendous growth we have achieved today. With innovation comes conflict. Many citizens feel the United States gives an illusion of freedom. Today the biggest conflicts are centered on basic rights spelled out in the constitution. It’s no secret the National Association of Surveillance illegally obtains information from the electronic devices of United States citizens. The actions of the NSA violate the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment rights. The NSA’s use of information impedes on the first amendment in terms of freedom of press. For a journalist the source is the key, and the key stays confidential. With the NSA collecting digital trails there is a higher risk for whistle blowers to be charged with criminal act or even assassinated. The courts stand by the NSA, for

The United States Constitution is the very foundation that the nation has been built upon, but its birth was not easy. The framers of the Constitution divided over many key issues relating to it and often argued at length over the creation, ratification, and implementation of this imperative document. Since the Constitution came into being it has been the epicenter of Civil Rights reforms, questions of state sovereignty versus national supremacy, and recently it has been looked to for questions about universal healthcare and what may or may not constitute a marriage. Currently the oldest “living” Constitution in the world; interpreting the United States

In “How to be a ‘Woman Programmer,’” first published in The New York Times, Ellen Ullman argues that there is great prejudice against women in the workplace. Specifically, Ullman thinks that such prejudice exists in the deeper parts of the more technical fields such as computer programming. While encouraging women to avoid confronting men who show their prejudice against them, Ullman nevertheless points out the idea that women should stick to their passion for their work. For Ullman, it is the next best thing that women can do, apart from being a practical solution. However, I think that women should not be afraid to call their male coworkers out whenever women experience sexual prejudice in the workplace regardless of their position. Today, there are laws that equip women with the power to bring erring male coworkers to justice. After all, if the point is to make the genders equal, women should learn to assert their rights.

American citizens were not pleased with the fact their rights were being violated. The Sedition Acts made it illegal for newspaper editors to criticize the government. The government imposed punishments for editors who violated this law. This act violated the freedom of the press, which is under the First Amendment. Stated in Document F, “the liberty of conscience and the press cannot be canceled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States.” By even appointing these acts, it meant the federal government was exercising a power that was never given to them in the first place. Document F states, “Alien and Seditions Acts, passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the federal government”. The administration’s foreign policy was not protecting Americans, rather violating their

The main question that probably arose was whether the president’s executive order surpassed the First Amendment. First, the District Court for the Southern District of New York judged the Times case and decided the government had not “show[ed] justification for the enforcement of such a [prior] restraint,” for it simply deemed the publication of the Pentagon Papers detrimental to the nation. Likewise, the District Court for the D.C. and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, the courts that judged the Washington Post case, came to the same verdict (New York Times Co. v. United States).

U.S Constitution is an document that has survived through more than 200 years of America, mainly because no matter what, Amendments change with it, changing our laws as well. And through these changes, we see the government trying to maintain them, but in most court cases, it can go the wrong way as to an answer to the victim. People get caught with their freedoms at stake, and the Constitution is changing always. But, as of now, it could be considered living.

To sum, the case is about an advertising the newspaper included some inaccurate story about the civic leaders, civil right events, and Sullivan. Sullivan (a public official) believed that the defamatory comments that were made of him were making a negative impact on his life, thus he sued the New York times. The court in Alabama at the time ruled “The law … implies legal injury from bare facts of publication itself, falsity and malice are presumed, general damages no need to presume.” Thus, the court from Alabama gave Sullivan a compensation of five hundred thousand dollars. New York times decided to take this case to the supreme court because they believe their 1st amendment rights were being violated. Therefore, a new question arose whether the first amendment protects defamatory, false statements concerning public officials? The court ruled that the 1st amendment does protect the publication of all statements, even false ones, concerning the conduct of a public official except when the statement was made with actual malice. Once again, we notice the irony of freedom of speech the issue is citizens are not informed that under the 1st amendment there is sufficient rights guarantee. It is not solely having the right to express our emotions towards the government, it is to expose information to citizens and have the citizens decided for themselves. Democracy does not work if the government or public official try to hide information from its citizens. Democracy function when there is a clear majority of press that expose the truth and allow people to determine what the issue is. Press must be able to protect us against an overreaching government. Sometimes executive power tries to control the press because they do not want to inform the truth about that for example the Watergates scandal, Edward Snowden, Wiki leaks and

A living document is a document that is continually edited or updated. In some ways,

Under the First Amendment, the founders intended to create a press that could inform the general public of government affairs. The Founders did this in response to the oppressive action of the British government, including the trial of John Paul Zenger. In Branzburg v. Hayes, a plurality and a concurrence within this Court recognized that the First Amendment included a privilege that protected journalists from being compelled to divulge a source to a grand jury. Because there was no clear majority, the narrowest holding of the plurality and the concurrence is considered the controlling opinion. Further, there is an overwhelming consensus among circuit courts that the privilege exists. This privilege protects journalists when the interest in

In the past, there has always been conflict between the free press and the government. This conflict was very evident in the Pentagon Papers case, also known as New York Times Co. v. United States. Historically, the Supreme Court has disagreed on the limitations that can be placed on the First Amendment. The Supreme Court faced these issues in the case of The New York Times. The newspaper obtained a copy of a Defense Department report that explained government deception in the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers emerged when the American people disagreed on the United States involvement in the war. Under the First Amendment, The New York Times argued

Media is everywhere, but determining what an accurate picture of reality is can be difficult. With all of the mainstream corporations out there, giving the people the full truth is not as important as protecting their economic interest. End The Lie leaves you with unanswered questions, while questioning the information given. However, The New York Times’ perspective of the Russian proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control goes more in depth and is more reliable than the alternative source End The Lie.

The concept that marriage can occur, endure, and succeed without the factor of love seems to be common in many other places in the world. “Who Needs Love! In Japan, Many Couples Don’t,” by Nicholas D. Kristof published in the New York Times in 1996 explores the aspects and success of loveless marriage in Japan beginning with Yuri Uemura of Omiya, Japan.

According to BBC News, an incident broke out where national security and the freedom of the press conflicted when Edward Snowden released sensitive NSA information about government operations. BBC News describes the incident by saying, “The scandal broke in early June 2013 when the Guardian newspaper reported that the US National Security Agency (NSA) was collecting the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. The paper published the secret court order directing telecommunications company Verizon to hand over all its telephone data to the NSA on an ‘ongoing daily basis’.” (BBC News). Later in the same article, BBC News stated, “Shortly afterwards, the Guardian revealed that ex-CIA systems analyst Edward Snowden was behind the