Skip to main content

Supreme Court cases everyone should know when discussing today's most pertinent issues.

             Let's start off with something that has slipped away as completely accepted in this day and age due to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on it just to show the colossal impact on society such decisions make. 
Brown V. Board of Education (1954)~Segregation of races in schools is inherently unequal and in violation of equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Can any of my fellow Americans even imagine what this day and age would be like without this court case? When just 58 years before Plessy V. Ferguson (1896)  had said segregation is allowed when accommodations were separate as well as equal. White, let's call them supremacists, found a way around this "accommodations must be equal" clause of the ruling, by passing off second-hand textbooks and teachers with lower pass rates on to schools specifically geared toward teaching Black Americans. 

              Now, how about something a little more controversial, abortion. In Roe V. Wade (1973) the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a woman had a right to choose whether or not to get an abortion under the privacy clause in the 14th amendment under the condition that the pregnancy was terminated within the first trimester of the pregnancy. So, anyone who says abortion is wrong or morally ambiguous, it is. However, it's also completely within a woman's rights, and it is not illegal or unconstitutional. In fact, one could make the argument that anyone protruding on a woman's right to get an abortion is in fact acting unconstitutional considering that your right to free speech does not extend to refusing someone else's rights. For in both Schenk v U.S. (1919) [ Says that any reason to believe you are under clear and present danger is sufficient to deny free speech] and Brandenberg V. Ohio (1969) [which says free speech is protected unless it is producing imminent lawless action, like a doctor refusing an abortion to a woman he knows will not survive the pregnancy but knows she can pay for the medical bill] would seem to mean that your actions as a protester or activist could be in violation of another person's rights.

              Finally, one of my favorite cases, Romer v. Evans (1996) guarantees equal protection under the law for homosexuals, but for reason some members of society think that means they can't marry. Just because your bible may say homosexuality is an abomination (which by the way it says about playing football too and I don't see any football players as pariahs in some societal circles do you?), doesn't mean it's law. In fact, you or any in the societal group that believes what you do (if you believe that) is inconsiderate of a homosexuals rights guaranteed in the Constitution of the United Sates of America. Just because a homosexual person's pursuit of happiness is different than yours doesn't make it suddenly incorrect and not covered in the constitution, so please anyone who reads this, pass it on. Let people know this issue has been decided already.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Election time sadness.

Here we are after eight years under President Obama getting ready to make a decision between bad and worse. I'm of course referring to our current predicament between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Let's break them down one at a time. Hillary Clinton: Pros:  Has the backing of several former Presidents something Trump lacks. Experience Incorporated good ideas of past opponents into her platform something Trump refuses to do. Rumors around Trump's campaign suggest Clinton's VP will be less powerful (which is a Pro considering VPs don't have to win primaries). Cons: Clinton's emails proved to the FBI that Clinton's negligence with her private server would constitute treason comparable to Edward Snowden, but the FBI mysteriously didn't suggest criminal charges. Clinton resided as the Secretary of State during the Benghazi crisis and seemed powerless or incompetent. Clinton's views on many different issues has flip-flopped over the yea...

My (late) thoughts on the election and campaign overall.

$1.6052 billion dollars spent on the 2012 presidential campaign just for an Incumbent to return, this is a great waste of money and absolutely screams to the USA that there needs to be some sort of campaign reform, super pacs and celebrities are now given more access to the candidates we the people elect than ever before just because of the enormous sums of money these groups can generate for a presidential candidate. This wasn't the peoples election, it was the 10%s election, and while I am pleased with the result of the campaign, money shouldn't determine the winner, and although I don't believe it did, some data from The New York Times gives some credence to the idea that the more money you have, the more likely you will win. Barack Obama raised $934 million and spent $852.9 million, in contrast Romney raised $881.8 million and *only* spent $752.3 million. Most peoples first question would be... where did the rest of that money go? The answer to that is simple, in Romne...