In the year 2006, the Stolen Valor Act made it illegal to make medals of Honor. The case brought forth to us describes issues brought about by this act. In United States v. Fields, Abel Fields attended a meeting where he proclaimed that he had military experience, and that he earned a Purple Heart. He had made false statements, and in turn was convicted, and had to pay a $1,000 fine. Fields felt that his First Amendment rights had been violated. He appealed his case to the court of appeals. He argued that it was okay to falsify his claims, because he they were about him. He didn’t harm anyone in lying about himself. The court of appeals overturned his conviction because they thought the Stole Valor Act was unnecessary. That wasn’t the end of it. The government appealed the court of appeals decision to bring to the Supreme Court where it is now. I stand with full belief, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that Abel Fields’ conviction be overturned. His First Amendment rights had been violated. Even though he was …show more content…
The first being, the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. In 1964, the New York Times printed an article about a public official’s police department. This article was riddled with false statements. It was brought to the Supreme Court many years ago. Our ruling then was that people can say false statements if they don’t intend malice, or ill will. We ruled in the Times’s favor. They didn’t mean to make false claims about the elected official. They had no malicious intent. The other case was Texas v. Johnson. Gregory Johnson burned an American flag in protest. The law in Texas at the time banned flag burnings. He was convicted, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. We ruled that Johnson’s right to free speech had been violated. He was expressing symbolic speech. We ruled that even though an opinion is unpopular, doesn’t mean we have the right to restrict his freedom of
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Whitney v. California Tylisia Crews September 22, 2015 Facts The parties of the Whitney v. California case was against petitioner Charlotte Anita Whitney and respondent, the state of California’s Criminal Syndicalism Act of California. It was argued on October 6th, 1925 and was decided on May 16th, 1927. The state of California filed a lawsuit against Whitney when they found out she was accused of helping begin the Communist Labor Party of America, a party that advocated violence to get a political change. Whitney was found guilty even though the constitution was the defendant’s defense.
Garrett Walters Government F.A.P. 12/6/16 Engel v. Vitale The Supreme Court case, Engel v. Vitale, was an extremely controversial case that directly dealt with the First Amendment. Engel v. Vitale was such a controversial case that it has opened the doorway for other cases dealing with church and state. This Court case established a separation between church and state.
Therefore, most of society agreed that what he did was wrong and he should be punished for it. The court had to be just and fair in their decision by interpreting the Constitution to the best of their abilities without biased though. They were making a ruling on the question, “Is the desecration of the American flag by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?” (Texas v. Johnson).
The problem arose when the police officers said they had not advised Miranda of his right to an attorney. Miranda’s lawyer was concerned that his Sixth Amendment Right had been violated. This case was noticed by the ACLU and was taken to the Supreme Court. This case raised issues within the Supreme Court on the rights of Criminal Defendants.
One of these cases is Patterson V. Colorado. Patterson published comics and articles about the Colorado Supreme Court. These comics criticized the judges of that court, and questioned many of their motives. Afterwards, Patterson was charged with contempt. He quickly moved to void the information by citing local law, the Colorado Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution.
Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.
Fields decide to appeal his sentence claiming his first amendment rights had been violated. The court of appeals granted his attempt to appeal the decision. The court of appeals ruled in his favor, and overturned his conviction. After Fields conviction had been overturned, The U.S. government decided to appeal Fields case.
In June 21, 1973, Miller was convicted on the ground of advertising the sale of what was considered by the court as adult material. He was found guilty as he broke the California Statute. The California Statute forbids citizens from spreading what is considered offensive in societal standards. The question that was being asked was that if the action of Miller was Constitution thus is protected under the law. However, he lost the case due to a vote of 5 - 4.
John Giglio was charged with passing forged money orders and sentenced to five years imprisonment. During the appeal, Giglio counsel discovered new evidence representing that the prosecutors had failed to reveal a promise made to its “key witness” that he wouldn’t be prosecuted if he testified for the government. The Court granted a certiorari to determine whether the evidence not revealed would require a retrial under the due process standards Napue v. Illinoi, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Evidence showed at trial, representatives at Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. learned that Robert Taliento, key witness and co-conspirator, was a banker teller and also had cashed several forged money orders. He confessed to providing Giglio with a customer’s bank signature card used by John Giglio to forge $2,300 in money orders.
“Elastic Clause”. This clause is also often referred to as the “necessary and proper” or the “sweeping” clause. It can be found in article 1, section 8 of the constitution, clause 18. The “elastic clause” puts forward that Congress has the power to pass any law that they have deemed to be both necessary and proper to implement the powers that have already been delegated to the Congress. (U.S Const.
Alvarez, the Court came to a 6-3 decision, which ruled in the favor of the respondent, Xavier Alvarez. The reasoning behind their decision was exemplified in the plurality opinion of the Court written by Justice Kennedy. He stated, “The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection” (Kennedy, Alito, Breyer 11). The government had made the accusation that false statements had no First Amendment value, but the Court rejected that notion fully because false statements help differentiate between a truth and a lie.
Sullivan (1964), but higher than the previous state standard where damages may be claimed if defamatory articles were published, Burger disagrees with the court 's rationale. Instead of creating a new approach, Burger states he would prefer to let the law progress "with respect to private citizens rather than embark on a new doctrinal theory which has no jurisprudential ancestry." Although he does not agree with the majority ruling, Burger does find that Gertz was wrongly held accountable. He cites the importance of Sixth Amendment and that lawyers should be viewed as neither positive nor negative. Further, he argues such views would cause lawyers to become selective with unpopular clients.
It was then said in the ruling that “States can set their own standards for private plaintiffs suing for defamation, provided they do not impose liability without fault,” and that the private figure must prove that the publisher was negligent, in order to “succeed on a defamation claim”. I found the ruling agreeable and reasonable. In the case study about Invasion of Privacy, Ruth Shulman and her son were involved in a car accident, and when they were rescued, Cameraman Joel Cooke recorded everything, “including conversations between Flight Nurse Laura Carnahan and Ruth, without the consent of the