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.
In the year 2011, 39-year-old Abel Fields attended a city meeting about public safety. During the meeting, he presented a speech where he falsely claimed that he had eight years of military experience and was rewarded the Purple Heart. Because of his lies, he was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act and found guilty, sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000. In his case before the Supreme Court, Fields argued that the Stolen Valor Act was unconstitutional, and that his right to free speech had been violated. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Fields' favor, but the government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court because, according to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005, these fraudulent claims "damage the reputation and meaning of
In 2007, the respondent Xavier Alvarez attended a meeting as a board member in Claremont, California, where he introduced himself as the following: “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor” (United States v Alvarez 1). In fact, Mr. Alvarez had never received said award, nor had he served in the United States Armed Forces. As a result of making said false statement, Alvarez was indicted under the Stolen Valor Act.
The Supreme Court ruled that it did not violate the eighth amendment and was constitutional. This brings up the question “Was the case properly determined by the Supreme Court or should it be Congress to decide?” Furman v. Georgia (1972) was a case similar to Gregg’s. A man was convicted of murder and burglary. He has sentenced the death penalty.
He appealed his conviction and sentence to the Fourth District Court of Appeal and they affirmed that the Act does not violate any constitutionality challenged the defendant. Facts 1. The defendant committed to serve time for certain crimes and he was prison released in August 1996. 2.
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.
The second issue is that the court held the government to failure to reveal its promise to Robert Taliento violated John Giglio due process rights established in Brady v. Maryland to receive all exculpatory evidence from the prosecution before trial. In relation, Napue v. Illinois, the undisclosed information proved that the government violated Giglio’s due process rights by presenting a false testimony from
The case Howes v. Fields was involved with the Miranda rights. The case is about an inmate´s confession about a sex crime without having the police officers questioning him telling him his Miranda rights. Mr. Fields had been brought to the jail of Michigan because of disorderly conduct. While being in jail Mr. Fields had been questioned by the police for several hours about the disorderly conduct. He was not told his Miranda rights, but he was told he was free to go back to his cell whenever he wanted too.
The court noted that the material that Miller distributed by Miller was not protected under the first Amendment. The court said that the materials Miller distributed were offensive to people, therefore violates the California Statute. (“Miller v. California. ")This is a similar argument that is used
Despite detailing the unfair treatment of baseball players at the words of the Reserve Clause, he never clarifies exactly how it is unconstitutional. He even mentions at several points where he talked to a lawyer friend about the case, as well as the executive board of the Players Association (130-131), but he doesn’t go into his specific legal arguments. While no one can argue for the Reserve Clause in terms of morality, if the clause doesn’t technically violate any laws in the Constitution, then the case is probably a lost cause. He closes out the article by trying to show the unconstitutionality of the clause using an analogy of an accountant in the same position (Flood 132), and if he had done the same thing while outlining exact violations of the Constitution in the process, this could have been a great article. As it is, it’s a very compelling thinkpiece that falls short with actual
It is fraud, you know it is fraud! What keeps you man?" (Miller 78). Those who were unhappy did not believe the court was protecting the innocent people the way they should. Some members of the community think that the court is not handling the prosecutions correctly and their decisions should be revised.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) was a Supreme court case deciding whether or not flag burning is supported by “symbolic speech” protected by the first amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson is caught burning the American flag in Dallas, Texas in 1989 to protest Ronald Reagan`s policies. When Johnson had burned the flag during the protest the state of Texas arrested him for desecrating a venerated object. Although Johnson did not hurt or threaten to hurt anyone witnesses and spectators claimed to be seriously offended by seeing Johnson burn the flag. Most of the people in the courtroom were sided with Gregory Johnson supporting the fact that flag burning is considered as symbolic speech which is protected by the first amendment.
One of those cases is US v Alvarez: a case that would see Xavier Alvarez prosecuted for falsely claiming to have received a Medal of Honor. Alvarez would have violated the Stolen Valor Act: an act that would criminalize those who have falsely claimed to receive a prestigious military award. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Alvarez, stating that the Stolen Valor Act goes against Xavier’s First Amendment rights. (US Courts) A similar case involved the Agency for International Development and the Alliance for Open Society International.
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).
He then sent a petition to the Florida Supreme Court, claiming that his rights under the Sixth Amendment had been violated. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition. So, he sent a letter to the United States Supreme Court asking them to hear his case, and they agreed. On January 15, 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon went to court again. The verdict was decided 64 days later, on March 18, 1963.