Bill of Rights: 220 Years and Still Kickin'

I haven't written in quite some time, clearly. However, I thought that I would revive this blog to celebrate the 220th birthday of the Bill of Rights.

Over the years, there have been additional amendments as the nation has evolved and as new problems have become apparent. Yet the Bill of Rights, the core ten amendments, still are seen to be the most integral. Further, the First Amendment has remained remarkably unchanged, even during the 220 years. To clear up the wording of "Congress shall make no law" (meaning the federal government alone), the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1865 to make the First Amendment binding upon governments of all levels in the United States.

The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment, Bill of Rights) While at first glance, this seems to be clear - all United States citizens are allowed to speak, gather, express ideas, petition the government, and practice their religion without interference from others - many situations have arisen in which different understandings have come into question.

In 1940, the case of Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296) decided that laws regarding the establishment of or prohibition of any religion are illegal. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (315 U.S. 568) found in 1942 that the state could limit epithets which an average person would likely retaliate against, therefore leading to a breach of the peace. The 1952 case of Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (343 U.S. 495) determined that no overarching restraint on motion pictures, such as that which New York had enacted, was not constitutional. 

These early cases show that there is a wide range as to what is and is not found constitutional. It seems from most early cases that the determining factor was whether it would disturb the peace and create a larger problem for the greater society. The Founding Fathers wished for citizens to express themselves and share information in order to be truly free, particularly given the fledgling country's recent history with the British monarch's tyranny.

As time has passed, some Supreme Court justices have rules that the First Amendment freedoms are absolute and of a higher power than other freedoms, yet the Court as a whole has routinely held that the rights protected under this amendment may be limited to protect the rights of others (in the cases of libel, privacy, and inflammatory remarks laws) or guard against subversion of government. This means that the Court does not hold the rights of the First Amendment to be absolute; there are some basic, guaranteed rights (mainly of society) which are held above the amendment's rights.

Current issues under the First Amendment include freedom of information, government access, citizens' right to know, rights of privacy, collection of information, censorship, access to media and information, and distribution of information. All of these have become more pressing with the integration of the internet and technology, which have contributed to the public's demand for transparency.

I'd love to delve more into this topic, but I have to finish work for finals! 

Remember to thank the troops who are serving, have served, or have given their lives in service to our country and protecting these rights for all of us. Without every single one of them, these rights would not remain intact and protected today.

Price Gougers Beware During Irene

State Warns ‘Price Gougers’ Not to Take Advantage of Irene | The Lincoln Tribune:


I was speaking with some people about prices rising for essentials due to the Hurricane coming. It was interesting to see how some stores raised, some lowered, and some kept prices steady. While the laws of business basically come down to supply and demand, there is a line between charging a little more and price gouging. It will be interesting to see, however, if any lawsuits arise in the next few weeks.

Voting Rights - Aided or Harmed by Photo ID?

Fed decision due for SC's new voter photo ID law | CharlotteObserver.com & The Charlotte Observer Newspaper:

I like this article a lot. It explains that identification is a requirement in thirty states currently, with half of these requiring it to be a photo identification. This is interesting in the modern times, since one would likely expect that all voters be required to do the same - at least to all show identification! The article then explains, however, why photo identification can be such an issue, particularly if it must be a current government identification, such as a passport or license.

I would like to say that nobody would take advantage of their state's policies not to show identification, but this could easily be manipulated. I come from a small, trusting town where my family has lived for years, and my father occasionally picks up my absentee ballot to bring here. No signing, no questions, no permission needed. Even there, however, you need to show identification before voting - especially the first time you vote.

Considering there are many things you cannot get without current government-issue photo identification today, one would think more state governments would come out with alternatives to the license or passport. I have heard of a few that give non-drivers licenses - essentially identification with a photo for non-drivers. It would seem prudent for more to adopt this practice.

Police Officers Lose on Recording Case

Court says state law used to ban recording of police officers in public is unconstitutional | Universal Hub:

A Boston lawyer named Simon Glik was arrested for using his cell phone to record a drug arrest on the Common. The law the attorney was arrested under bans any audio recordings not consented to by all involved parties. There are similar laws in many other states, but many protest the constitutionality as well as the fairness of such laws.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the officers' claim of "qualified immunity" due to performing their job is not valid under the First Amendment. Glik claimed that his arrest and the seizure of his cell phone violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The opinion explained that the police carrying out their duties is without a doubt allowed to be recorded by members of the public.

It is interesting to see this step towards allowing recording rather than away from the same. It has been a point of contention between the development of technology and the evolution of the law for some time, particularly in group settings such as classes or administrative meetings. Going forward, it will be interesting to see if further recordings are permitted. Unfortunately, it may take a number of years for the case law to truly evolve.

Studying for the LSAT sounds simple enough. Put in enough time, get result. Unfortunately, time is really what I lack. I feel like I am at such a disadvantage because of my schedule. I keep trying to maneuver my schedule to fix this, but there are certain things (like work and illness) that simply can't be moved. I've barely seen friends this summer, so now they aren't too happy with me, either. I move back to school in 25 days. I have a few major medical appointments in that time. I have to pack things up soon. Then, I will have school. Sooooo when is this studying happening? Yeah, beats me, too.

In Session Today...

I'm home sick still, so clearly I am studying for the LSAT and watching In Session.... when I'm not sleeping and feeling unable to move. :)

Anyways, on In Session today, they are discussing the new development regarding Casey Anthony. For those of you who do not know, there are questions in regards to whether she completed her one year probation while in jail or if she must report to one of the Orange County courthouses to check in with probation by tomorrow. One interesting note here is that in Florida, apparently, one can serve probation while in jail. This is not typically the case, so many across the country are having difficulties understanding it. Further, it appears clear that the judge's intention, as stated and recorded, was that the probation be following her release from jail. In the written order, however, it stated that it was to be concurrent with her jail sentence. It will be interesting to note whether they presiding judge (as the original judge is now on vacation) will go with the intention or let her off on a technicality. Another point of note is that there is a 60 day limit to a judge changing or clarifying an order in any manner. That 60 days is long gone, so the recent addition by the judge of the phrase stating it was to follow her release from prison should not, under Florida law, be an acceptable change.

Warren Jeffs is, for those who do not know, on trial in Texas for sex crimes. As a church leader in what has been described as an old-time Mormonist community, he used his position to both rule the lives and take advantage of young females. The prosecution played an hour and a half of over a two hour tape yesterday of one of his pre-marriage preparation courses for teenage girls. The reactions of the jury and public in the court was impressively somber and heavy. Simply hearing a brief description of it was bad enough. The prosecution has another tape they intend to play today that is a recording of him with a 12 year old. The jury and public do not seem to want to hear more, but it is important that the prosecution get all of the information, including the age of these girls, in before resting their case. I can say that I certainly am glad not to be on that jury. Another interesting bit about the tape is that Jeffs did not allow any members of his community into the courtroom to hear this by telling them that, if they heard it, they would go to hell.

Related articles

• Casey Anthony ordered to Orlando for probation (cbsnews.com)
• on my radar: warren jeffs and sharia bans (scrambledmeggs.wordpress.com)
• Prosecution Set to Rest Case Against Warren Jeffs (foxnews.com)

Some words I need to remember more often

law school ninja | two-thirds of a ninja jd: "Don’t overbook your life. You are not infallible. Sometimes your lap just isn’t big enough to hold all the things you want it to."

This is a great post. I've recently had issues with this, such as last semester (previously mentioned), this summer, etc.