Are Funeral Protests Protected Speech? Should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest at military funerals? This argument has become a very popular and heated debate throughout the United States. Though I strongly disagree with the Westboro Baptist Church, according to the United States Constitution, their First Amendment right allows them to picket military funerals. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides individuals with important personal freedoms.
FACTS this lawsuit was brought to the courts for a second time as the plaintiff alleged that because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. The first appeal on this case the defendant court affirmed judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The district court found that the plaintiff had not sustained his burden of showing that this was abuse. So the plaintiff appealed. ISSUE the district court stated that the books the plaintiff wanted was not necessary for the practice of Cooper’s faith.
In 1965 John Tinker made the decision that he and others from his school would wear black armbands to their school in Des Moines, Iowa in protest of the ongoing Vietnam war. The armbands, which were plain besides a white peace symbol, were meant to signify the teenagers support of the Christmas truce called for by Robert F Kennedy as well as the end of the United States involvement in the Vietnam war. The reason of the students opposition was the high amount of United States soldiers that were killed and wounded in a war that many deemed unnecessary. Principals at the Des Moines schools came together to make the decision that any students that refused to remove the armbands in school would be suspended, so when Tinker was forced to leave school because he would not remove the armband many said this was a violation of his first and fourteenth amendment rights. Reasons given to these suspensions was that the school system did not allow for students to wear armbands in school.
When The Boy Scouts of America caught hear of this, it was immediately taken to court. Opening in 1992,the court 1st went with Dale’s appeal stating that the Boy Scouts had violated the sexual basis law of Pennsylvania. Later this would be overturned because the Boy Scouts of America’s First Amendment right of expressive association clearly saying, "The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA."
The first amendment in the Constitution of the United States encompasses many immutable rights of its people such as freedom of speech, assembly, press, and lastly, religion. In Engel v. Vitale for example, the Supreme court’s court unanimous decision is rooted in the establishment clause of the first amendment which reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.” In this pivotal case, aroused the anger of many parents who did not approve of prayer being recited by New York school children. Although it is not unconstitutional to pray in public schools, the Constitution does however forbid the encouragement of recitation in public schools. Therefore in an opinion delivered by Justice Hugo Black, the court reached a decision that encouragement
One being the issue of whether drivers are allowed to warn other drives of speed traps ahead or not. This case was taken to court and the judge ruled in favor of the people, saying that warning each other is using their freedom of speech ("Federal Judge Rules Drivers Allowed to Flash Headlights to Warn of Speed Traps"). Another recent case happened within the Air Force when taking oath. One man who was an atheist refused to say ‘God’ in the oath and he was kicked out. This was surrounded with mixed opinions because what happened was considered unconstitutional because he should have the freedom to his own religion ("Air Force Boots Atheist Who Won't Say 'God' in
The Board of Education meant for the prayer to be non offensive and non denominational but the prayer began to receive negative attention. Parents of some of the students filed legal action and lost in lower court and continued on to file an appeal to the Supreme Court. The legal question that the Supreme Court faced was; does the use of this prayer violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment which was made applicable to the states by the 14th amendment? The Supreme Court upheld that yes; the prayer does violate the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. The Court defended its decision with a lengthy history of the importance of separation between church and state.
2. The United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit ruled the “Act” violates the Constitution by denying health benefits to same-sex spouses. 3. Since 2010, courts reviewing the “Act” have found it unconstitutional even on a basic level of interpretation of the law. 4.
On March 19, 2001, Judicial Watch urged the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to reject the plea agreement under which Bill Clinton’s friend James T. Riady and the Lippo Bank escaped with what was for them a slap on the wrist for their serious violations of campaign finance laws and other crimes. The pleading submitted by Judicial Watch is a clear and comprehensive summary of those crimes. It makes a persuasive case that the punishment agreed to by the Reno Justice Department and approved by the Ashcroft Justice Department does not come close to fitting the crimes and should have been set aside. The media coverage of this miscarriage of justice has been confined to reporting the judge’s acceptance of the plea agreement ? a fine of $8.6
In the case of, Haskell County board of commissioners V. James Green and the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma. Local resident James Green and The ACLU of Oklahoma filled a lawsuit challenging the display of the monument which was placed on the courthouse lawn, receiving permission from the Haskell County Board of Commissioners. “In its decision, the court ruled that the monument violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution because a reasonable observer would view the Monument as having the impermissible principal or primary effect of endorsing religion”. The Monument was unconstitutional, the court ruled, because the proposal to erect the Monument its approval by the commissioners’ expressly religious defense of the Monument strongly reflects a government endorsement of religion. Due to the fact that several days after the Monument was put up, a dedication ceremony was held that included opening and closing prayers and remarks from several local pastors who talked about the religious significant of the monument