ETVT that SCOTUS is a effective protector of rights (30)

Question 1

1st amendment - They havent

Answer 1

Morse v Frederick 2007, 18-year-old boy was suspended for unveiling sign reading ‘Bong hits 4 Jesus’, the first amendment does not prevent educators from supressing student speech in this case.

2004 District Mcconell v FEC argued that the Bipartisan campaign reform act that limits political campaign spending does not violate the 1st amendment and restrictions on free speech is minimal. The legitimate interest in preventing corruption of large financial donations is more important.

The establishment clause guarantees freedom of religion and strictly prohibits the government from passing any legislation to establish a religion or prefer on over the other, however In Zelman v Simmons Harris in 2002 the court upheld a programme in Ohio giving financial aid to religious schools.

Question 2

1st amendment - They have

Answer 2

Texas v Johnson 1989, 1st amendment protected the burning of a flag, Kennedy wrote ‘The hard fact is sometimes we have to make decisions we do not like’. In this case despite justices disagreeing with the outcome of their ruling they still used the US constitution to protect rights.

Synder v Phelps 2011, speech on a matter of public concerns in a public area even if it cases emotional distress or ‘offensive’ is protected under the 1st amendment.

Citizens United v FEC 2010, 1st amendment protects government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations including nonprofit corporations.

Burwell v Hobby Lobby stores 2014, ACA 2010 violated the religious freedom restoration act 1993, corporations are people and have the same individuals’ rights as individuals.

Question 3

8th amendment - They havent

Answer 3

They haven’t however protected the death penalty in a majority of occasions.

Baze v Rees 2008, the court decided that lethal injection, the method used by the federal government and 35 states to execute criminals did not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.

Buckwell v Precythe 2019, the 8th amendment does not guarantee a prisoner a ‘painless death’.

Glossip v Gloss 2015, Allows continue use of lethal injection, responsibility of the prisoner to demonstrate that the method caused severe pain and not responsibility of the state. Therefore, they must provide a alternative method.

Question 4

They have

Answer 4

Roper v Simmons 2005 the court decided in a 5-4 decision that it is unconstitutional to sentence anyone to death for a crim he or she committed when younger than 18.

Atkins v Virginia 2002, the court ruled that the execution of mentally retarded criminals infringed on the 8th amendment but it did not state what contributed to mental retardation.

Question 5

Abortion and LGBTQ+ rights - They havent

Answer 5

Dobbs v Jackson overturned long standing precedent in Roe v Wade 1973 and Planned parenthood v Casey 1992, ruling that the 14th amendment and due process clause ‘life, liberty and property’ does not give women the right to have a abortion, it is not a essential component of liberty.

Sometimes there is a conflict between rights, meaning that in this case LGBTQ+ rights are not protected

2018 Masterpiece bakery v Colorado civil rights commission, sided religious freedom but against LGBTQ rights, so the 1st amendment versus the 14th amendment

Question 6

Abortion and LGBTQ+ rights - they have

Answer 6

In 2010 Mcdonald v City of Chicago ruled that the 2nd amendment gives people the rights to bear arms and because of the due process clause of the 14th amendment these rights cannot be infringed upon by the states.

Obergefell v Hodges 2015, ruled that the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th amendment required all states to recognise and perform same sex marriage, therefore protecting LGBTQ+ rights.

Lawrence v Texas 2003 and US v Windsor 2013