Amendment #11-27
Amendment 19: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Amendment #19 was proposed to equalize the voting among men and women. It wouldn’t/isn’t fair to not have equal gender rights in the United States, so they created this amendment to give women the right of suffrage. It became an amendment by many women speaking up for equal rights such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. These were the women who organized the first woman’s rights convention at Seneca Falls, New York. At this convention, more than 300 people showed up including African-American slave and activist, Frederick Douglass. As they had more meetings and conventions, they were joined by other activists such as Susan B. Anthony. In 1869, Stanton and Anthony formed the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) to help get closer to a federal constitutional amendment that would give women the right to vote. These victorious effects started slowly but surely, when the Wyoming Territory gave women 21 and over the right to vote. Then in the 1890s, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho helped by also giving women the right to vote if they were 21+. Then between 1910 and 1918, many states/territories gave women the right to vote if they were 21 or older. These states/territories were: The Alaska Territory, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, and Washington. By then, 21 states/territories had let women over 18 have the right to vote. Stanton’s daughter, Harriot Stanton Blatch, had organized plenty of marches, pickets and parades, which help lead the awareness to Washington D.C.. In 1918, Woodrow Wilson helped by switching his view on women’s voting from objection to support. He helped with the support of the amendment by voting for it, and by convincing people (specifically men) that women had the right to vote and how America played a critical part in WWI. Unfortunately, the approval was missed by 2 votes in the Senate, but that didn’t stop the fight for women’s rights. On May 21, 1919, James R. Mann, a Republican from Illinois and head of the Suffrage Committee, proposed the House resolution to approve the 19th Amendment. The measure passed the House 304-89. Two weeks later, it then became an amendment by being passed by Congress on June 4, 1919, and ratified in the U.S. Constitution on August 18, 1920. Its impact on Americans is that it helped give voting rights to women, rather than just having men vote. Women fought for this right for around 50 years and possibly more, to get their well deserved right. This was one of the many achievements in helping women get the rights that they truly do deserve.
2 Current Supreme Court Cases
The two current court cases that I am going to do are Byrd vs. United States and Carpenter vs. US. The case of Terrence Byrd vs. United States was granted on Sep. 28, 2017 and is about if the driver had a reasonable expectation for privacy in his rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the rental car, but not an authorized driver on the rental agreement. Aparentally, Terrence Byrd (the petitioner) was driving in Pennsylvania, when he was pulled over by the police for violating a state law that requires drivers to use the left lane for passing only. The police noticed that the car was a rental car and asked Byrd for his license and his rental agreement. The rental agreement apparently did not list Byrd as an authorized driver of the rental car. The police then ran his identification and noticed that he was using an alias and had an valid arrest warrant, but it did not request extradition from other jurisdictions. The officer’s then asked whether Byrd had anything illegal inside of the car and requested Byrd’s consent to search the car (even though they didn’t need it). They then found heroin and body armor inside the trunk of the car. The district court determined that the violation of the traffic law justified the stopping and the extension of the court. Byrd denied that he gave consent to the police officer to search his car. There was then a “circuit split” as to whether an unlisted driver of a rental car had a sensible expectation of privacy of the rental car. The question that the Supreme Court Justices have to ask is, “Does a driver have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the car, but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.” I personally think that the police is correct/going to win because even if Byrd didn’t give his consent for the police to search the car, the police had a reasonable excuse and right to search the car. I think that this case is really similar to the T.L.O case because the petitioner says that they did not give consent to searching their car/purse, but then the police officer/P.E. coach searched the item anyway and found evidence of illegal activity inside. Carpenter vs. United States starts with four men being connected to robberies and one of the men confessed and gave his phone number to the police, which connected the calls to the cell tower which was run by Timothy Carpenter. They then charged Timothy Carpenter of aiding the robbers with their robberies. Carpenter argued that the FBI needed a warrant based on a probable cause, violating the 4th amendment. The question that the Supreme Court had to ask themselves was, “Does the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, which include the location of and movements of cell phone users, violate the Fourth Amendment?” I personally think that this does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the people searching were the FBI, who has high authority, and since one of the robbers gave up his phone number, that was similar to giving consent for the FBI to search what they could from the phone number, leading them to the cell tower services, which led them to Timothy Carpenter. Therefore, I don’t think that the FBI was violating the Fourth Amendment by searching through the information that they were given. This case was argued on November 29, 2017, but the Supreme Court has not reached a decision yet.
2 Past Supreme Court Cases
The two past Supreme Court Cases that I have chosen are Rankin vs. McPherson and Nollan vs. California Coastal Commision. Rankin vs. McPherson was about freedom of speech while Nollan vs. California Coastal Commision was about the 5th and 14th amendment. Both of these cases were argued and decided in 1987.
Rankin vs. McPherson was argued on March 23, 1987. Rankin was the petitioner while McPherson was the respondent. McPherson was a clerical employee in Harris County, Texas for the constable’s office. After hearing a message from the office radio that President Ronald Reagan had nearly been assassinated; “If they go for him again, I hope they get him.” Another coworker overheard the comment and reported the comment to the constable, Walter H. Rankin. Afterward, Rankin fired McPherson. The question that the Supreme Court had to discuss, was, “Did the Constable’s actions infringe upon McPherson’s freedom of speech which is guaranteed by the First Amendment?” I personally think that Rankin did not infringe upon McPherson’s freedom of speech, because McPherson was sort of commiting treason by wanting to assassinate Ronald Reagan. Also, Rankin did nothing to stop McPherson from saying those words. For example, if you say, “I hate this stupid job! I want to quit”, to your boss, and he/she fires you, the boss wasn’t blocking you from your freedom of speech. On June 24, 1987, the Court ruled 5-4 in favor of McPherson. They implied that when considered in context was, “plainly dealt with a matter of public concern.” The court found no evidence saying that McPherson had interfered with, “the efficient functioning of the office.” She also did not diminish the impact of her speech of the agency’s proper functioning. The impact of this event show some of the unique parts of the 1st amendment and to get more people in check of the 1st amendment and its rules.
The other court case, Nollan vs. California Coastal Commision, was argued on March 30, 1987. Nollan was the appellant and the California Coastal Commision was the appelle. This court case was about the 5th and 14th amendment to take away people’s property. The California Coastal Commision required owners of beachfront property, wishing to obtain a building permit to maintain a pathway on their property open to the public. Obviously, the owners did not want to let their property up just for some pathway and they thought it was against their 5th and 14th amendment. I personally thought that this was a violation of these two amendments. It’s just not right to take away the property that people have paid for/renting and to just move them out of it just because of one pathway. The Supreme Court had to decide upon the question, “Did the requirement constitute a property in taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment?” The Court ruled in favor of Nollan, according to Justice Scalia (the person with majority opinion), “If California wished to use its power of eminent domain to do so, it must provide just compensation to the Nollans and other beachfront property owners for the public use of their land. The impact from this Supreme Court case was to show the 5th and 14th amendment and how it can protect the people from government control.
Modern Issue Regarding Bill of Rights
A modern issue that is regarding the Bill of Rights is the issue of the death penalty. In 32 states, death penalty is legal, including California. Though there are 18 states that have abolished slavery plus Washington D.C. Death Penalty is when the person is convicted for murder or other capital offenses such as sexual assault or an attack resulting in extreme injuries to the victim. Though the issue is not about the crime. The issue is about the method of execution. There are many ways for execute the death penalty; firing squads, hangings, gas chambers, the electric chair, and lethal injections are the most common. There have been many debates in the Supreme Court that have been about death penalty such as Baze vs. Rees. Baze vs. Rees was about if the lethal injection protocol was constitutional and if it was substantially safe. Baze thought that it was not substantially safe, because they insert three drugs in you for your death. They insert an anesthetic drug into the subject to make them unconscious, then they insert pancuronium bromide to cause muscle paralysis, and then they finally insert potassium chloride to stop the heart. If the subject was injected the drugs without the anesthesia drug, the process would be in excruciatingly painful. Baze argued that if the anesthesia wore off before the process was finished, the subject would be in extreme pain, violating the 8th amendment. This is true because the 8th amendment is, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” As I stated before, this would violate the 8th amendment by being a cruel and unusual punishment inflicted on the subject. They want the execution to painless and quick. The other forms of death penalty violate this amendment as well. The other techniques are firing squads, hangings, gas chambers, and the electric chair. A firing squad is outdated and could be extremely painful for the person if the shooters did not kill him right away, just like the lethal injections, violating the 8th amendment. Hangings have not been used since January 25, 1996. There are errors when doing this such as if the rope is too long, the subject could be decapitated. If the rope is too short, the strangulation (the action or state of being strangled) could take as long as 45 minutes. Obviously, if the torture last for 45 minutes, this violates the 8th amendment for cruel and unusual punishments. Gas chambers were used back in WWII with Hitler using them to kill prisoners in concentration camps and people who went against him. This causes people to suffer around 20 seconds of cruel suffocation by gas. Obviously they don’t use this anymore because of Hitler’s actions in WWII and it is violating the 8th amendment because this is a really cruel punishment to do to the subject. The electric chair is a really cruel punishment that has been outdated because of the popularity of lethal injection. Though the problem with this is it violates the 8th amendment because usually the process takes a range from 2-15 minutes. The subject receives a jolt between 500 and 2000 volts for 30 seconds at a time. So this is probably one of the, if not, the cruelest way of torture of them all. So Baze was arguing that they need to find a new form of death penalty, because all of the other forms of death penalty have a decent chance of violating the 8th amendment. Baze is still on death row because of his debate against Rees, and has been for 25 years. This is why death penalty is regarding the Bill of Rights because the scientists have still not found a way to give a quick and painless way for death penalty that doesn’t violate the 8th amendment. Some of the options that scientists are looking at forms such as opiod with the drug, fentanyl. Though the states are still debating about if we should have this technique.
Brown vs. Board of Education
Gideon vs. Wainwright
Gideon vs. Wainwright was about the 6th amendment. Gideon was a shifty thief who was a troublemaker and was arrested for a felony; breaking into a poolroom with the intent to commit a misdemeanor offense. When he attended the court, Gideon requested that the court should give him a lawyer. According to the law in Florida, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases. Therefore, the court did not have to appoint Gideon a lawyer. Gideon was then found guilty in the court and sentenced to 5 years in prison. While in jail, Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court and argued that the trial he had taken had violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court said no to his demand. So Gideon then took it up to the Supreme Court of the United States wanting to have the right to have a lawyer. This case was argued on January 15, 1963. The Supreme Court had to dispute the question of “Does the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?” I personally think if the petitioner wants a lawyer from the counsel because they can’t afford one, they should still get it, to have a fair trial against the respondent. The decision by the Supreme Court was made on March 18, 1963. The Supreme Court had an unanimous decision for Gideon. The majority opinion was by Hugo Black and delivered the 9-0 opinion. They thought that the creators of the Constitution had wanted to make it very important that the accused should have should have a fair and equal trial and that the state and federal courts must obey that right. Obviously, the Court thought it would be better to be on the same side as the Constitution, rather against it and become an unreliable court. Justice Tom C. Clark wrote that “the Constitution guarantees the right to counsel as a protection of due process, and there in no reason to apply that protection in certain cases but not others.” What this means is that there is no reason to deny somebody the right of a lawyer given by the counsel to somebody in one court, and then give somebody else the right to a lawyer in another court. Because of this case, another case, Betts vs. Brady, was overturned because it was a similar scenario to what this case was. Betts vs. Brady as argued on April 12-13, 1942 and was decided on June 1, 1942. Betts was indicted for robbery in Maryland and was unable to afford a lawyer and requested one, but was denied. He pled not guilty while saying that he had a right to a lawyer from counsel. In 1942, the court voted 6-3 for Brady because they thought that criminal defendants who couldn’t afford a lawyer do not have the right to get a lawyer in their defense. The majority opinion was by Owen J. Roberts, whose opinion was that “the right to counsel merely prevented the state from interfering in a defendant’s request for representation rather than requiring a state to offer counsel” Like I said before, this case got overturned by the Gideon vs. Wainwright case because of the newer realization of the 6th amendment and how the petitioner, if they can’t afford one, should be able to have a lawyer from counsel.
Tinker vs. Des Moines
Tinker vs. Des Moines was a case about the First Amendment; freedom of expression.In December 1965, there was a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa who held a meeting to plan a showing at school to show their support for a truce in the Vietnam war. They decided at that meeting to wear black armbands through the holiday season. They also decided to fast on Dec. 16 and Dec. 31. The leaders of the Des Moines school learned about the plan and met on December 14th to form a policy that stated that if any student were to wear an armband would be asked to remove it. If they refused, they would be suspended. On December 16th, as planned, Mary Beth Tinker and Christopher Eckhardt wore their armbands at school and were suspended. The very next day, John Tinker did the same exact thing, and got the same exact result; suspension. These students were suspended until after New Year’s Day, the planned end day of the protest. Their parents then sued the school district for violating the students’ right of expression and sought an ban to prevent the school district from wrongfully disciplining the students. The district court dismissed the case, thinking that the school district’s actions were fair. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit confirmed the decision without opinion. Then they took the case up to the Supreme Court, where they debated the case. This case was argued on November 12, 1968. The question that the Supreme Court Justices had to ask themselves was, “Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students’ freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?” I personally think that the students have the right to express themselves as long as it is not a sign that is not disrespecting to everyone such as “flipping the bird” I don’t think that wearing armbands of any one color could be offensive in any way, especially in this scenario, because it’s freedom of expression. On Feb. 24, 1969, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the students should have that right of expression. The vote was 7-2 in favor of Tinker. The majority opinion was by Abe Fortas. The Supreme Court thought that the armbands represented pure speech that was completely separate from the actions of those engaging in it. The Court also stated that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights when they stepped onto school property. In order for the school district to be able to prove that they were right, they would have had to prove that the activity would have to materially and substantially interfere with the daily activities of the school. Since the armbands did not distract from the school’s environment, Tinker and the group of students won the case against the Des Moines School District. The two justices that voted against Tinker were Hugo Black and John Harlan. Hugo Black’s opinion was that the First Amendment did not give the right to express any opinion at any time. He also thought that the armbands distracted the students from their work, and the school leaders from their jobs, giving the school district the right to discipline the students. John Harlan’s opinion was that the school officials should have wide authority to give discipline unless they are arguing for an unrelated school interest.
Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier
Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier was about the First Amendment’s freedom of the press. The Spectrum, the school newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. But in May of 1983, Robert Reynolds, the school principal, received one of the final versions for the 13th of May issue. The principal thought that 2 of the articles in the issue were inappropriate. One was about teen pregnancy and the other was about a girl whose parents were divorced and criticized her father. Reynolds then took these two articles out of the paper, without telling the creators of the paper, and sent it off to be published. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court, saying that the principal and the Hazelwood School District violated their first amendment rights about freedom of the press. This argument went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court heard this case on October 13th, 1987. The question that the Supreme Court had to discuss was, “Did the principal’s deletion of the articles violate the students’ rights under the First Amendment?” I personally think that the principal did violate the students’ First Amendment rights because he didn’t tell them that he was going to take the articles out, or give them time to add more “appropriate” articles to fill in the space where the other two articles should have gone. This would be like if you were going to Disney World, but you had to pay for the airplane costs for an extra 4 people, that somebody “forgot” was coming on the trip, at the airport. Though despite my opinion (mainly because I wasn’t alive in 1987), the Supreme Court ruled against my opinion, for the Hazelwood School District. It was a 5-3 decision (one of the justices was absent), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the First Amendment did not require schools to willingly promote particular types of student speech. The Court held that, “schools must be able to set high standards for student speech disseminated under their auspices, and that schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was ‘inconsistent with the shared values of a civilized social order.’ ” They thought that principal Reynolds was trying to look out for “legitimate pedagogical concerns.” This basically means that principal Reynolds was trying to look out for younger kids in the high school (probably freshmen and sophomores) if they were not mature enough to handle the material that was put inside of the two articles. He also thought that the material might be explicit for younger readers that are not ready for this type of terminology that was being discussed in topics such as teenage pregnancy or divorce. I can imagine that some kids have not learned about “family life” yet and would be completely unprepared to learn this knowledge just by reading this article. Or for the other article, there are plenty of kids that have parents that are still married and have not had any tragic experiences with their parents like the girl did in the article. In conclusion, the Supreme Court thought that principal Reynolds had stayed inside the boundaries and not violated any of the First Amendment rights.
Wallace vs. Jaffree
Wallace vs. Jaffree is a case about the First Amendment. In Alabama of 1984, there was a school where the teachers had the students practice religion, whether it was a moment of silence for God, saying prayers, etc. Some of the kids at the school would make fun of other kids who did not participate in the prayers and other religious activities. They would do this daily to the kids of the school. Some of the kids at this school belonged to Jaffree, who thought this was unfair and a violation of the first amendment, because they were nearly forcing the kids to practice religion, even if they didn’t want to. Also, the other kids would still be teased each day by not wanting/participating in the prayer/ritual. So Jafree went to court to testify himself against the governor of Alabama, George Wallace. He went to argue at the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The debate moved up to the Supreme Court and was argued on December 4, 1984. The two sides argued their points, and after the trial was done, the Supreme Court had to decide which side they would go on. The Supreme Court had to ask the tough question, “Did Alabama violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause?” Before I knew what the decision of the case was in class, I thought that Tinker was right. I think that it is a violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause because it violates the choice for the children of wanting to practice religion/if the parents are wanting for their children to practice religion. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” This clause is used to protect against the laws such as in the Constitutions of Clarence which denied prisoners the right to practice their own religion. This clause helps protect the children from the school’s rules about religion. The Supreme Court ended up voting 6-3 for Tinker, for the students of the Alabama school. The justices that voted for Tinker were William J. Brennan, Jr. , Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr. , John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O’Connor. They thought that it was not only a contradiction from the state’s job to remain neutral, but was a pretty obvious to see that the state was endorsing religion. States are not supposed to pick a side for which religion or if they should have religion or not, because of the First Amendment. I am pretty sure that some private schools can have religion, even some public schools, that can be optional. Besides optional religion, the state cannot have schools that participate in religious activities, because it is violating the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clause. This makes sure that people can practice their religion that they please to because some of the practices in one religion might be against a practice in one religion, might be fine in another. In conclusion, Tinker won the court case because of the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clause, 6-3 in the Supreme Court.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O.
The New Jersey vs. T.L.O. case was about the rights of the Fourth Amendment. T.L.O. was a student in high school. Some of the leaders and officials at the school were suspicious of T.L.O. carrying drugs and smoking materials around the campus. One time, when T.L.O. was in the bathroom, a female P.E. coach went inside the girl’s bathroom and saw T.L.O. with cigarettes. She decided to go to the vice principal with the bag and have them search through it further. They found cigarettes, marijuana, and a list of names listing the people who owed money to T.L.O. They charged T.L.O. for possession of illegal drugs and for selling them. They took this to case to court, but T.L.O. wanted to remove the belongings of the bag before the case, but was denied. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County found T.L.O guilty and sentenced her to one year of probation. On appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division approved the denial as well for hiding the evidence. Though on the contrary, the New Jersey Supreme Court said that showing the contents inside the bag would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment because they said that the Fourth Amendment applies to all of the searches ran by school leaders in public schools. The case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O. was argued on March 28, 1984.The Supreme Court then had to ask themselves the question, “Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?” I think that the exclusionary rule does apply to searches to some extent. For example, if a school official just randomly started to ask somebody for their binder, and started to search through it, that would be a violation of the exclusion act. Or in the case when a kid asked Ms. Ray if he could leave his backpack in her classroom, it reeked of marijuana, and Ms. Ray brang it to the principal for him to do the job of opening it and searching its contents. The decision by the Supreme Court was decided on January 15, 1984. The justices decided 6-3 for the state of New Jersey. I think this is the right decision because the school did suspect T.L.O. of having/smoking cigarettes, found this evidence, and then decided to search her purse once they had reasonable evidence. After this, they had a follow-up court trial about if the principal’s actions of if he was violating the Fourth Amendment by searching through T.L.O.’s bag. This case was held on October 2nd, 1984. It was also decided on January 15, 1985. The court ruled in favor of the vice principal because they thought that “the search was reasonable for the circumstances.” I agree with this statement because if the P.E. found somebody inside rummaging through a purse, inside of a bathroom, all alone, it would be pretty obvious to find that this person is doing something bad. Keep in mind that this person has been thought of to have smoked before, I think this is a pretty good reason to search somebody’s bag after finding cigarettes in the purse.
Bibliography
https://www.aclu.org/united-states-bill-rights-first-10-amendments-constitution#firstamendment
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
https://nccs.net/online-resources/us-constitution/amendments-to-the-us-constitution/amendments-11-27/amendment-19-voting-rights-for-men-and-women
http://www.history.com/topics/womens-history/19th-amendment
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/092817zr_9o6b.pdf
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/85-2068
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1986/86-133
https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001172
https://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=001769#2
https://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/methods/hanging.htm
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p103_Faurisson.html
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220#
https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-die-by-electric-chair
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-execution-death-penalty-fentanyl-opioids-20171209-story.html
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-402
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1987/86-836
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1984/83-812
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-712