Charles Schneck

Charles Schneck
In Schenck v. United States, Charles Schneck was a member of the executive committee of the Socialist party during WW1. He was in charge of
printing and distributing of 15,000 fliers to discourage men from submitting to the draft. The U.S government under Woodrow Wilson however had
passed the Espionage act of 1917, which had made speech like Schneck's illegal because it acted as interference to military operations and recruitment.
The Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that Schneck's conviction was constitutional. The reasoning given was that because this was a time
of war justice Holmes said, "the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create
a clear and present danger that they will bring... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He claimed that Congress, Supreme Court and the President were suppressing the white race and wanted to march on Washington. Ohio charged
Brandenburg under the Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for advocating violence. The Supreme Court reversed the Brandenburg decision because
the government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of violence or law violation. The test that was created said "speech can be
prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."(Oyez) There must
be a clear and present danger present for someone first amendments right to be regulated. 2. In Near v. Minnesota in 1927 Jay Near was characterized
as being an anti–Catholic, anti–Semitic, anti–black and anti–labor. He started publishing in the Saturday press, which was based in Minneapolis. Near
decided to publish that Jewish gangs were running the city and that the police chief was involved. In his paper Near went after an attorney and a future
three term governor Floyd Olson. (Wiki) After Near posted this Guilford
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

The Supreme Court Had To Ultimately Determine Whether Or
The Supreme Court had to ultimately determine whether or not the Bakeshop Act of 1895 violated the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
After two days of oral arguments, the Supreme Court voted 5 to 4, in favor of Lochner. Hall and Patrick (2006) notes that Justice John Marshall
Harlan was initially attached to writing the opinion of the court. However, Justice Harlan was unable to maintain a majority and, as a result, Justice
Rufus Peckham wrote the majority opinion (70). Following the shift, the majority opinion of the Court found that the New York law was, in fact,
unconstitutional for several reasons. Justice Peckham argued that the state's use of police powers must be exercised "in a legitimate, fair, and
reasonable way" (70).... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., on the other hand, provided a dissenting opinion which argued that the Court should rule in favor of the state
legislature. Justice Holmes agreed with the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan, Justice White, and Justice Day. However, Justice Holmes argued that
the Court must respect the will of the American people and, by ruling in Lochner's favor, the Court was ignoring popular will (71). Justice Holmes
also noted that "the Fourteenth Amendment had not enacted Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics," (71) which had suggested that differences among
social classes were inescapable and, as such, the law should perpetuate such differences as they were deemed "good" for society (71). The decision of
Lochner v. New York(1905) was exceptionally controversial and the period following this court case would be infamously known as the Lochner era
(72). The industrial growth brought forth rapid social and economic changes which prompted states, like New York, to mitigate its various
consequences. The Court's use of its judicial review, however, subsequently allowed for the Constitution to adopt a specific economic theory– an
economic theory that would be used to strike down countless reform regulations on federal child labor laws, minimum wage laws, and regulations on
various industries (72). Hall and Patrick (2006) state that the Lochner v. New York (1905)

Defamation Law: Libel And Slander Essay
The civil liberties that the American people have are inalienable rights. The most important of these is the freedom of speech. Yet freedom of
speech is not entirely protected; using hurtful, false, or damaging speech is not allowed. But how can the American government control something
as basic as speech? There are laws against libel and slander but how are they perpetrated? This essay will explain how the court cases and laws have
evolved and been clarified throughout America's history up to present day. The meaning of libel is a false and malicious publication printed for the
purpose of defaming a living person. Now there have been hundreds of cases of libel in the United States. Some significant court cases are ones like
New York... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The second major cas in that helped to clarify the meaning of libel was the court case of Crutis Publishing Co. v Butts. The case helped to clarify the
meaning of defamation claims brought by private individuals. The case held that news organizations were protected from liability when printing
allegations about public officials, although they may still be sued by public figures if the information they printed was recklessly gathered or if it
was left unchecked. Again because it is difficult to prove either of theses, the press ended up with more freedom to print political corruption and
scandal. The meaning of libel was clarified in other such court cases as Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). This case is about the
murder of young man by police officer, Mr Nuccio. The victim's family appointed lawyer Elmer Gertz to represent them in court. The lawyer Gertz
was later in an article Robert Welch's magazine, American Opinion, about communism and how the murder was a setup to try to create a communist
government in america and discredit police officers. The article also said falsely that Mr Gertz was a crimminal and that he was a communist. Gertz
filed a lawsuit stating that he was wrongly accused of being a communist and that the other statements made in the article were false. He used the
court cases of New York Times v Sullivian and the other case Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts to prove his case. The

Minnesota Gag Law
In the 1907 Patterson case, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes declared that he First Amendment and any similar laws "prevent all such previous restraints
upon publications... and they do not prevent the subsequent punishment of such as may be deemed contrary to the public welfare." Holmes later
recognized error in his interpretation of the First Amendment by stating in 1919 that "the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech [and
press] is not confined to previous restraints." Holmes reinterpreted the First Amendment, and soon after, another case arrived in the Supreme Court for
Justice Holmes to vote in defense of a more comprehensive freedom of the press.
The Minnesota legislature passed what became known as the "Minnesota Gag Law" in ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In a particularly harsh and surprising article on the typically conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page, the writer voices his anger with Trump's
dubitable claims that British Intelligence wiretapped President Trump on behalf of the Obama administration. He concludes his article with the
statement, "Two months into his Presidency, Gallup has Mr. Trump's approval rating at 39 percent. No doubt Mr. Trump considers that fake news,
but if he doesn't show more respect for the truth, most Americans may conclude he's a fake President." While this is an especially severe statement,
according to the aforementioned Fox News poll, the majority of people "think it's better for the country if the news media 'cover the president
aggressively.'" The result of this poll is compatible with the public's positive response to the Supreme Court's ruling in New York Times v. United
States. With the new administration, freedom of the press will remain at the forefront as questions continue to arise about what type of press is best for
the

The Debate Over Same Sex Marriage
Dissenting Rhetoric On June 26, 2015, same–sex marriage was legalized across the united states, due to a decision the Supreme Court made; the
decision made all state level bans on same–sex marriage were considered unconstitutional, thus overruling the bans. In the dissenting argument on the
Supreme Court's Decision to legalize same–sex couple marriage, Chief Justice Roberts makes a passionate argument revolving around the fact that it
was the Supreme Court that made the decision and not the Country. Chief Justice Roberts shows his emotional look on the decision throughout the
dissenting argument. During the dissenting article his frustration and anger grows during the moments where his personality was shown through. In
the argument, Roberts stated, "Many people will rejoice, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not
men, the majority's approach is deeply disheartening" (Roberts 2). Roberts is showing though his own emotional outlook that he is not upset nor
disappointed in the decision to allow same–sex marriage, but disappointed that the Supreme Court of nine people was allowed to make a decision for a
country of fifty states. His disappointment continues, Roberts ends the dissenting argument with a last thought, "Celebrate the availability of new
benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent" (29). Roberts shows his anger at the decision, that
the choice was

My Favorite Case We Went Over In Constitutional Law This
My favorite case we went over in constitutional law this year is Lochner v. New York because of the display of power by the justices joined in the
majority and the fervent dissent countering their reasoning. I have described Lochner above in the context of the Commerce clause above but my
focus for this question is the case in context of the Substantive due process section of the class. The substantive due process clause deals with the law
itself and not the process, substantive rights are protected under the Due Process Clause. This clause has come to encompass more and more rights,
such as abortion, the right to die, and many other. "No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law" (U.S. Const.
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The general right to make a contract in relation to business is protected by the 14th amendment because it was read into "liberty" of the due process
clause. Justice Peckham established that "The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment, unless there are
circumstances which exclude the right" (Lochner 809). The court found that the right to contract was a fundamental liberty, expanding the mean of that
word to something more than just bodily freedom. A reason I think this is one of my favorite case is because this is one of the earlier cases of Judicial
Activism. I tend to agree with Holmes' dissent more because he argues that the constitution should not be used to limit governmental regulation under
the guise of the 14th amendment to promote a Laissez–fair form of economics. "But a constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic
theory, whether or paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the state or laissez–fair" (Lochner 813). He states that "Every opinion tends to
become a law. I think that the word liberty in the Fourteenth Amendment is perverted when it is held to prevent the natural outcome of a dominant
opinion...." (Lochner 813). He disagreed with the majority Justice's conclusion that creates law from the bench. It is the job of the legislature to create
laws

Wilde Case Summary
Wilde V. City of Normal The new ordinance regulating short term rentals violates Ima Liddle Wilde right to due process, and right of contract
protected under the 14th Amendment. Normal, Illinois's city ordinance makes the historic 3 story Victorian property valueless, and resulted in a taking
of her property violating the taking clause of the 5th amendment, while also violating her right to contract with fellow citizen. In Lucas V. South
Carolina costal council of 1992, Justice Antonin Scalia delivers the court's opinion stating "sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of
the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking..." (Lucas 1234).... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
v. Parrish states "The constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty" (Parrish 301) and that laws are required to safe guard the
health, safety, and welfare of the people. If the city can show a clear benefits the ordinance will have on the community, then liberty of contract
argument is not applicable to this case. In Muller v. Oregon (1908) in the opinion Justice Brewer states that the state can restrict a person's right of
contract without violating the 14th amendment provisions, and again mentioning that contracts are "not absolute and extending to all contracts".
(Oregon 298) In this case restrictions are only placed on rentals shorter than 30 days and requires the owner to reside in the house. Even with the
limitations placed on Ms. Wilde the property still has value, such as selling the property or renting it longer than 30 days at a time. Justice Blackmun in
dissenting in the Lucas case, states the "petitioner still can enjoy other attributes of ownership, such as the right to exclude others" (Lucas 1237).
Because the property still has economic productivity, albeit with some regulation the ordinance does not invoke a taking. In Nolan v. California Coastal
Commission (1987) the Essential Nexus was established, meaning a conditional permit may be constitutional if the owner is Page

The Importance Of Presidential Power In The Constitution
"This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution"(Rozell). The President, since the beginning, has
gained powers not specifically enumerated, increasing the power of the executive branch. Over the course of history the President has assumed many
powers unlisted in the Constitution including the line item veto, executive privilege, and executive order which have all impacted the President's
relationship with Congress.
The line item veto was used very briefly during the Clinton administration before it was later declared unconstitutional, though it was wanted by many
other administrations. The line item veto is defined as,"A special form of veto in which the chief executive has the right to prevent particular
provisions of a bill enacted by a legislative assembly from becoming law without having to kill all the other parts of the bill at the same
time"(Johnson). An example of the president using the line item veto is Bill Clinton, which vetoed part of the Balanced Budget Act which,"relinquished
the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers"("Clinton v. City of New York
."). The line
item veto was then declared unconstitutional because of the President's ability to "amend" legislation that was already passed by both houses of
congress, and declared that the President must totally reject or accept a bill. One major challenge towards the line item veto is that

New York Times vs Sullivan
The court case of New York Times vs Sullivan was a case that involved public officials and how they were libeled in the press in the year of
nineteen sixty four. L.B. Sullivan was one of three elected commissioners of Alabama. The respondent was L. B. Sullivan was a public official
from Alabama and brought a lawsuit against an clergymen, a negro and against a petitioner of the New York Times Company. L.B. Sullivan sued all
of these people because he felt that he was libeled in a advertisement of the New York Times. The case had to deal with if the constitutional
protections of speech and press limit the states power to award damages for the libel action brought by a public official against the critics of his
official conduct. The jury in Alabama agreed with Sullivan and found that the libelous action was in breach of Constitutional protections of speech
and press. The jury in the circuit court awarded Sullivan five hundred thousand dollars in damages. This was the initial ruling against the New York
Times who had lost. Sullivan had claimed he was libeled in the advertisement called Heed Their Rising Voices. In the libel action claim Sullivan the
third paragraph in the advertisement read as follows "In Montgomery, Alabama, after students sang "My country tis of thee" on state capitol steps, their
leaders were expelled from school and, truckloads of police armed with shotguns and tear gas ringed the Alabama State College Campus. When the
entire student body protested by

Supreme Court Case: The Wabash Vs. Illinois Case
Wabash v Illinois In 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that states could not regulate commerce that went beyond their boundaries in the Wabash,
St. Louis and Pacific R.R. versus Illinois case. The decision provided the basis for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887.
The Interstate Commerce Commission was a regulatory agency in the united states. Its purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to
regulate rate discrimination and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies. With the
construction and use of railroads, the main question that had to be answered was who would control the railroad services and monitor rail ways.
Since there were no laws within the railroad services, many states established and controlled their own regulatory board. Many rail companies
operated between states so enforcing rules was seen as impractical and useless. Meanwhile the railroad companies were abusing their powers by setting
their own standards and practices. This case began with Illinois suing the not Wabash, St.Louis and Pacific... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Supreme Court case upheld the constitutionality of segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. The Court ruled that a state law that
"implies merely a legal distinction" between whites and blacks did not conflict with the 13th and14th Amendments. Restrictive legislation based on
race continued following the Plessy decision, it was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. The case came from
Louisiana, which in 1890 adopted a law providing for "equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races" on its railroads. In 1892,
passenger Homer Plessy refused to sit in a Jim Crow car. He was brought before Judge John H. Ferguson of the Criminal Court for New Orleans, who
upheld the state law. The law was challenged in the Supreme Court on grounds that it conflicted with the 13th and 14th

The Right To Privacy Analysis
On February 26, 2016, President–elect Donald J. Trump berated that the television cameras at his rallies only pointed to crowds when there was an
attendee causing trouble and slammed the media as the "most dishonest groups of people [he has] ever met," during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas. He
also insulted one of the most well–respected journalistic organizations, The New York Times, stating, "They're terrible... A failing newspaper, which
probably won't be along for that much longer." Trump also added that the Times was "run by incompetent people" and had "an agenda that you
wouldn't believe." He further attacked Jeff Bezos, the CEO of Amazon and owner of The Washington Post; he believed that Bezo's objective in
purchasing The Washington Post... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The President of the United states is more than a chief executive. They are a symbol, for the nation and the world, of what is means to be an
American. Much of the President's power to represent and inspire the people originate from narrative (McAdams). President–elect Trump has
demonstrated unethical behavior throughout his campaign and during the election. He has attacked the New York Times and The Washington Post
because of his belief in suppressing public information. Although he has expressed the importance of honestly in the media, he has hidden information
from the people. His loyalty lies within himself. He has previously invited his supporters to boo and jeer at reporters and photographers in attendance
of his rallies. He banned some news organizations from his events. To bypass mainstream media, President–elect Trump has used Twitter to
communicate directly to millions of his followers, preventing the people from making informed decisions. Freedom of expression is a fundamental
human

Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism is not Controversial The legitimacy, and even existence of judicial activism is a hotly debated topic in today's politics. Some argue
that the supreme court acts as a revolutionary reformer which leads the way on progressive issues. Still others argue that the constitution is a living
document which is meant to serve the needs of the present, effectively negating the concept of judicial activism altogether. If one were to assume that
judicial activism truly exists, defined as ruling which break from contemporary legal understanding and precedent, one is able to analyze the context of
such decisions and the real role that the Supreme Court plays in the evolution of political and social norms. With this in mind, it appears... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Supreme Court largely ceased to hear cases concerning economic regulation after its decision in United States v. Carolene Products Co., which
included a now–famous footnote. Footnote Four stated that the Court would thenceforth apply stricter criteria to hear economic cases and would focus
mainly on cases which concerned the mistreatment of minorities. In 1944, the Court ruled in favor of the government's Japanese interment policy in
the case Fred Korematsu v. United States. After the attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, anti
–Japanese paranoia led FDR to approve the
internment of Japanese immigrants and Japanese–American citizens. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese–American citizen who evaded the order to
relocate and was subsequently found and arrested. The case focused on the constitutionality of suspending the rights of U.S. citizens for national
security purposes. The support of Japanese internment and its execution by the government is unsurprising. Americans have a history of racism against
Asian minorities. When waves of Cantonese migrants arrived in California to work on the Transcontinental Railroad, the federal government bent to
the concerns of white citizens and passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which limited Chinese migration. The Court's decision was a simple
continuation of anti–Asian policies supported by nativist white Americans. Although the

Lochner V. New York Case Brief Summary
Lochner v. New York (1905) Facts Joseph Lochner was a bakery owner in New York who was convicted of violating a law limiting the hours of
employment in bakeries to 10 hours a day and 60 hours a week. The New York appellate courts ruled against him, sustaining his conviction. Lochner
appealed to the Supreme Court from the New York Court of Appeals. Issue Did the New York law violate the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering
with the liberty of individuals to make contracts regarding labor? Rule A New York Law limited the hours employees were authorized to work in
bakeries and confectionary establishments. The Fourteenth Amendment declared states could not deprive people of life, liberty, or property without
due process, and deny people equal... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He argued the right to purchase or sell labor was a protected right under the liberty included under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, he admitted
states had police powers, which could limit the property and liberty of individuals. There was a limit on the exercise of police power though, or the
Fourteenth Amendment would be useless. The police powers could be used for the safety, morals, general welfare, and health of the public. The New
York law did not involve the safety, morals, or general welfare of the public. Justice Peckham argued the law did not affect the health of the public
either because clean bread did not depend on the number of hours an individual worked. Working as a baker was not considered healthy but was also
not regarded as unhealthy. Therefore, if the Court allowed the legislature to make laws on occupations not absolutely healthy, it would have the power
to regulate almost every occupation. Justice Peckham argued the New York law was invalid because it interfered with the liberty of individuals to
make contracts protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Harlan dissented, arguing the New York law was enacted to protect the physical
health of employees in bakeries. Justice Holmes also dissented, arguing the Constitution should not be interpreted in favor of an economic theory,

Essay on The First Amendment and its Impact on Media
The First Amendment and its Impact on Media
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. The first amendment to the
United State's constitution is one of the most important writings in our short history. The first amendment has defined and shaped our country into what
it is today. The amendment has constantly been challenged and ratified through literature, court cases, and our media. In fact, media is driven by the
first amendment. Without it, we as citizens wouldn't be able to view or listen to what we want, ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The most famous defamation case, which still sets precedent in today's cases, is New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). New York Times v. Sullivan
(1964) is the leading case on the question of defamation liability for media defendants. The case, heard before the Supreme Court, declared that public
officials and figures could not recover for an alleged defamation unless they can prove both that the statement was false, and was made with actual
malice. This decision prevents the news media from reporting on false or slanderous stories. It protects the country's public icons seeing they are almost
always in the spotlight. In addition to defamation hindering media, obscenity and pornography on the net have placed limitations on what some
websites may provide in terms of content.
Under Miller v. California (1973) in order for material to be found obscene by a court of law, the material must appeal to the prurient interest, as
judged against local community standards. The material must also depict or describe sexual conduct (as defined by applicable state law) in a
"patently offensive" or "indecent" way and lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. These standards apply equally in the context of the
Internet as they do in ordinary books and magazines. Where material is found to be obscene, the First Amendment does not apply. This decision

Legal Liberalism Calls For Equality
Legal liberalism calls for equality before the law; it was a manner to ensure that there shall be equality before all citizens, protecting them from unjust
statutes or acts the state may incorporate. However, despite the protections in our constitution, there are instances in American history where the
Supreme Court has endorsed other branches to violate or limit its citizens' economic freedom. In this essay I will cite court cases and documents that
incited conflict, most notably "substantive due process" and "liberty of contract." In light of these cases it prompted a massive transformation in
constitutional jurisprudence such as Equal protections clause, right to privacy, and criminal defendants' rights that moved the nation towards... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In reaction, the butchers filed a lawsuit claiming that this Louisiana law violated their fundamental rights to pursue happiness and to pursue their
calling as butchers. They argued that the right was protected under the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment, which had been ratified
in 1848. In a 5–4 decision, the supreme Court conflicted with the butchers' reasoning. The Supreme Court ruled that the monopoly inflicted by the state
did not violate the 13th and 14th amendments (privilege and immunities clause); in other words, the claim did not forbid limits on the rights to use
one's property (Lecture). Essentially, the Supreme Court rendered the "privileges and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment insignificant. In the
Field and Bradley dissent, they argue that the purpose of the immunities clause was to limit state action, Bradley went so far as to incorporating the
Bill of Rights into the dissent. The Slaughter house case is one of the Supreme Court's worst decisions plus an example of the U.S. violating its
Constitution. The 14th amendment, privileges and immunities clause states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the

Paper on Freedom for the Thought That We Hate
Paper on Freedom for the Thought that we Hate
In the book Freedom for the Thought that we Hate, author Anthony Lewis takes a simply phrased law, the First Amendment and shows how complex
freedom of speech really is once put into the real world of freedom, as we know it. He shows through his rejections of absolutism, strong support
towards freedom restriction, and objective analysis of Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, that theUnited States press is unlike any other in the world.
Lewis rejects the First Amendment absolutism when discussing his argument about shield laws. As discussed in the book, a shield law is legislation
designed to allow news reporters the right to refuse to testify to information or give up their sources of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Lewis states that this case "revolutionized the law of libel in the United States" he explains that "The old common law doctrine putting the burden
on libel defendants to prove truth was reversed." (Lewis, Pg.55) This case even resulted in affecting the law in other countries, I agree that it was
the right approach to create the three laws of libel. I feel that Lewis does a great job writing this case objectively yet still allowing his readers to
come to the same conclusion he does, the case was handled properly by the Supreme Court in their ending deciscion. After reading Freedom for the
Thought That We Hate, I personally have become to consider Oliver Wendell Holmes a First Amendment hero. There are two cases the Lewis
describes from the book where I really feel Holmes made an impact on free speech as it is today, Abrams vs. United States and Schenck vs. United
States. In the case of Abrams vs. United States, four radicals threw leaflets from the top of a New York building urging a general strike in protest
against Woodrow Wilsons decision to send American troops into Russia. They were charged for "attempt to hurt the war against Germany," and all four
were convicted. Holmes made a powerful argument he said that "to punish speech that produces and is intended to produce a clear and imminent
danger that will bring about forthwith certain substantive evils." (Lewis,

The Dangers Of The Freedom Of Speech
Lately, there is the growing attitude is that the freedom of speech only applies to those who you agree with. There is a, "Sure you have the freedom
of speech, as long as I agree with what you say" mentality among young people. The first amendment I guess is just some silly phrase. In general,
conservative speakers are the target of this mentality. While this is true as a generality, the specific instances being discussed in this paper will relate to
the shutdown, or "shout–down," of conservative speakers on college campuses by leftist students and the infamous Antifa organization who is
shockingly celebrated by lots of people on the left.
Speech law gets tricky in this situation. As a country we really have not experienced anything like it. There is no precedent for students yelling
"Shame!" over and over again so a speaker cannot speak at his own event. Obviously when Antifa and other "righteous and courageous" social
justice warriors tear up the whole city like they did in Berkeley, it is unlawful. Also when students blockade the entrance to a public venue (liberals
acting not so liberally), they should be removed. However when students yell for half an hour straight so that Ben Shapiro cannot get a word in at his
own speech, logically no legal action may be taken, except possible removal from the speech by speech security. However, the fact that security rarely
takes action shows the lack of respect for the freedom of speech by campus administration. Ideally and

Presidential Signing Statement Analysis
We have all heard about presidential signing statements, however, many don't understand the definition of the term. What are presidential signing
statements? What is the purpose of a signing statement? Well, let us find out! A presidential signing statement is simply a written declaration
sporadically issued by the President when he signs a bill into law. Additionally, the purpose of presidential signing statements differs. Presidential
signing statements can be rhetorical, political or constitutional. It also worth noting that the constitution is silent about presidential signing statements.
It neither allow nor outlaw presidential signing statements. However, the constitution does state that the president has the authority to veto any bill
approved by congress, and the power to check that the laws are truly implemented. According to the American Bar Association President Karen J.
Mathis, "The potential for abuse in the issuance of presidential signing statements has reached the point where it poses a real threat to our system of
checks and balances and the rule of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Apps.Americabar.org). Also, Mathis advised Congress to require a president to report to Congress in an openly accessible database whenever issuing a
statement expressing in the report an explanation of the reasons. Mathis also urged presidents to express concerns to congress about the
constitutionality of any pending legislation before it is passed, and veto any bills that they believed to be unconstitutional. According to Mathis, "such
legislation would increase transparency in government and resolve any separation of powers issues that may accompany the use of presidential
signings statements." (www.

Is Baba Wawa Guilty Of Defamation Of Character And...
In this case, there are two issues. These issues happen when Baba Wawa shows up earlier for the interview. Instead of saying she was there, she
secretly takes pictures of Howard Huge holding one of the dogs and that of Beauty Queen wiping something from the carpet and apparently crying.
Without inquiry, Baba Wawa decides that Howard Huge is choking the dog, Beauty Queen must be doomed in her marriage and that the dogs are
hidden from people.
The legal issues, in this case, is the defendant, who published the story about the plaintiff, liable for defamation of character and invasion of privacy?
The matter of whether Baba Wawa is guilty of defamation happens when she publishes a photo of Howard Huge implying that he was mad and
choking the dog. Beauty Queen was cringing and then goes on to make a statement that couple declined to permit the dogs to be seen and that no one
had seen the dogs since the photos were taken. The publication and statement ruin the couple's image. Their friends are avoiding them, and they are not
enabling them to show the dogs. There is also an issue of whether the Star News is guilty of defamation by allowing Baba Wawa to distribute the story
using their publication. The matter of whether Baba Wawa is guilty of invasion of privacy occurs when she takes pictures of the two without their
permission. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In common law, defamation in writing is classified as Libel, and oral defamation as Slander" There are four elements of defamation.
i. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the defamatory statement made by the defendant is

What Is New York Times Co.'s 'Heed Their Rising Voices'?
On March 29, 1960, New York Times Co. published an advertisement called "Heed Their
Rising Voices", which accused police in Montgomery, Alabama, of leading a campaign to destroy Martin Luther King Jr.'s integration efforts. The
advertisement originated by stating that,
"as the whole world knows by now, thousands of Southern Negro students engaged in wide–spread nonviolent demonstrations in positive affirmation of
the right to live in human dignity as guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights." And, "in their efforts to uphold these
guarantees, they are being met by an unprecedented wave of terror by those who would deny and negate that document which the whole world looks
upon as setting the pattern for modern freedom ..." ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The people who failed to see if the things said were accurate, relied on the knowledge of the good reputation of many of those whose names were
entitled as sponsors of the advertisement such as, A. Philip Randolph, known to them as a responsible individual, certifying that the use of the names
were approved. The people making the advertisement saw nothing in it that would render it offensive under the New
York Times policy because it, "attacks of a personal character". They saw it as negligence for them failing to discover the misstatements and were
constitutionally defective in another admiration. Sullivan relies on the testimony of six witnesses and on the statements in the advertisement to start a
connection between it and him. He states, "The reference to respondent as police commissioner is clear from the ad. In addition, the jury heard the
testimony of a newspaper editor . . . ; a real estate and insurance man . . . ; the sales manager of a men's clothing
Williamson

New York Times V. Sullivan Case Study
New York Times v. Sullivan was a landmark case which dictated the outcomes of many subsequent cases. However, after the Supreme Court's
unanimous ruling in favor of the New York Times in 1964, Justice Brennan's opinion raised just as many–if not more–questions than it had answered. In
fact, many justices struggled with how to make sense of the ruling and how it could be applied in both similar and different contexts. While this case
was a crucial turning point in the application of First Amendment protection in libel cases, this ruling was by no means an end–all to our understanding
of free expression and the protection of it. This was demonstrated in cases concerning private versus public figures, through self–censorship and in the
operation... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Sullivan case, it is unlikely that he imagined the extent to which his words were to have such a huge, lasting impact on the American idea of free
expression. While this ruling did not eliminate all confusion, dissent, adaptation or scrutiny, it did shape decades of court rulings and First Amendment
interpretation and is still important to this day. While our understanding of free expression, protection of the press, and libel law is neither complete nor
perfect, one cannot deny that this case broke new ground and influenced the opinions of justices, lawyers, media entities and the public

Speech On The First Amendment
Cecilia Long MC 4301 Gilbert Martinez 05/06/2016 Part 2: Final Exam The First Amendment protects any person's freedom of speech from
Congress, state government and local public officials. However, this does not allow individuals to be free in saying anything that they want to say.
One example of speech that is not protected by the First Amendment are crimes involving speech. If a form of speech is used to commit a crime such
as perjury, harassment or extortion, it will not be provided protection by the First Amendment. Another example is Conduct Regulations. Our
government has the right to make laws in regards to the specific conduct used in the speech such as stating when, where and how the speech can be
provided. These regulations can be upheld by courts as long as they considered content–neutral and are not constraining the expression of ideas. For
example, they are allowed to limit the size of collateral used for speech and are also able to limit the level of sound in speech that can be heard at
distinct times. The Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics strives to secure the "free exchange of information". It must be fair, accurate
and thorough and also states that integrity is a key factor in being an ethical journalist. The Society asserts four main principles as the foundations to
all ethical journalism and promotes their use in practice by all people in all media. The first code is to "Seek Truth and Report It." It states that all ethical

The United State 's Supreme Court
Repeatedly throughout history, the United State's Supreme Court has changed their standing on labor laws, from supporting the right's of employees to
supporting the right's of employers. In 1903, the Supreme Court concluded through Lochner v. New York that the government did not have the right to
oversee businesses, but in 1908 the Supreme Court passed an unprecedented decision regarding labor laws. In Muller v. Oregon, the Supreme Court
alternatively sided with the workers and upheld restriction on working hours in a gendered argument based on the fact that the workers were women.
On the surface, the decision was just, as it protected workers' right, but in the long run the outcome was unjust; suggesting through gender formation,
intersectionality, and structural sexism that superficially the decision was a progressive legislation but it masked misogynist values, preserved
heteronormative ideals and perpetuated gender inequality. Muller v. Oregon was a landmark case between the state of Oregon and Curt Muller.
Muller, an owner of a laundry business, was fined for working his female employee over the ten hour work limit. In the Lochner case the Supreme
Court decided that the state government did not have the right to regulate businesses, so Muller assumed he had the freedom of contract and the right
to regulate his employee's work hours. When he was fined, he decided to take it to court. Unexpected to Muller, the Supreme Court decided to uphold
Oregon's ten hour work

Case Study: Lochner V. New York
Lochner v. New York 198 US 45 (1905) Facts A case concerning economic due process and state police power. In 1897 New York passed the
Bakeshop Act which prohibited employees from working more than ten hours per day and sixty hours per week. Joseph Lochner, owner of
Lochner's Home Bakery, was convicted of violating the Act in 1899 for requiring an employee to work more than sixty hours a week. Lochner was
fined $25. Two years later Lochner was charged with a second violation, found guilty and was fined $50 or fifty days in jail if he did not pay the fine.
Lochner appealed the decision and fine. The highest court of New York upheld the decision and fine. He then appealed to the Supreme Court asking
the Court to reverse his conviction on the... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
5–4 in favor of Lochner. Justice Peckham wrote the majority opinion. Reasoning 1.The law interferes with the right of contract between the
employer and employed concerning the number of hours of labor. The right to make a contact in relation to one's business if part of the liberty of
the individual protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to purchase or to sell labor is part of the liberty protected by this amendment.
Each party has as much right to purchase as the other to sell labor. 2.The holding in Holden v. Hardy, upholding an Act as a valid exercise of police
power of the state because the law applied only to employment of underground mining and work in smelters, does not apply to this case. 3.There
is no reasonable ground for interfering with the liberty of person or the right of free contract, by determining the hours of labor. The interests of
the public are not at all affected by the Act. The limitation of the hours of labor is not within the valid scope of police power of the state. 4.There
is a limit to the valid exercise of police power by the state. The mere assertion that a subject related to the public health does not make an act valid, it
must have a more direct relation before an act, that interferes with the general right of an individual to be free in his person and in his power to
contract his own labor, is to be upheld as

The Civil Rights Movement : The New York Times Newspaper...
In 1960 the Civil Rights Movement was beginning to gain a lot strength. Many civil rights leaders put a full–page ad in the New York Times newspaper
company. The ad was to raise money to help civil rights leaders, including Martin Luther King, Jr. There were sixty popular
Americans who signed it. The ad put in the paper was describing how " an unprecedented wave of terror" was rising with police actions against
peaceful demonstrators in Montgomery,
Alabama. The ad was mostly accurate, but a few of the charges in it were not true. An example is that the ad said police "ringed" a college campus
where many protesters were, but this charge was completely exaggerated. The ad also read the false statement: "When the entire student body
protested ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The background to New York Times v. Sullivan is pretty complex and has a lot to it. The city of Montgomery, Alabama, was already considered to be
in civic stress when The New York
Times published an ad by the name of "Heed Their Rising Voices" on March 29, 1960. February
25, about 35 students from the Alabama State College, which was an all–black school, were buying food in a snack bar in the basement of the
Montgomery County Courthouse. They were taken into custody and arrested. The day after the arrest Governor John Patterson, who was once the
officio chairman for the state board of education, demanded for the expulsion of the African
American students from the public college. Two days after the expulsion almost all of the 800 students that attended Alabama State marched to the state
capitol to protest against Patterson's actions with the students. While state and Montgomery police stood by, members of the Ku Klux
Klan wielding baseball bats assaulted the students of the college. The attack was unpunished even though the Montgomery Advertiser produced and
printed pictures of the incident, with several clearly identified members. (Urofsky pg. 2)
Bayard Rustin, A. Phillip Randolph, and Harry Emerson Fosdick were

The Bakeshop Case
Reformers have been trying to start a movement for worker protection. They are trying to regulate hours and help health regulations for men,
women, and children. It has been a hard process in which they have worked years to achieve. In order to achieve these laws, reformers must bring
to light the health and safety issues that are in the work place. The Bakeshop case is 1905, Joseph Lochner was an owner of a bakery in New York.
New York had passed a law in 1895, prohibited all bakeries in New York from working more than 10 hours and day, and 60 hours a week. Lochner
believed that this goes against his constitutional rights. Again, this court case brings forward the fourteenth amendment. Lochner believed that he
should be allowed to work more... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Lochner filed the case against New York. New York stated that cooking at a bakery causes all of health issues, and that the law was protecting his
health. The Court ruled 5–4, because they found it did restrict the owners individual business, and they didn't have a reliable reason to pass the law.
People believed that the State of New York didn't make the law for health and safety; it was a labor law. Reformers such as Justice John Marshall
Harlan, attacked the majority decision. He provided legitimate health evidence to provide reasonableness to the law. This Court case was a
disaster for reformers. Then immediately following Lochner v New York, another court case took place: people v Williams. Muller v Oregon was
the key case that the reformers were waiting for. The Muller vs. Oregon case took place in January 1908. The major issue of the court case was from
an Oregon law that passed in 1903 that set a maximum of ten hour work days for women who were employed in factories and

Wisconsin V. Yoder: The Criminalization Of Polygamy
Criminalization of Polygamy clearly interferes with the Freedom of Exercise Clause due to the years of precedent establishing the fundamental right
of such Clause. An Amish child has the right to not attend school because it is part of their religion in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). This case furthered
the use of the Sherbert test when ruling in favor of the Amish American citizen. Chief Justice Burger in his opinion describes, through the use of this
test, the government had no right to create a law infringing on an individual's right to choose whether or not to attend school. He says, "however strong
the State's interest in universal compulsory education, it is by no means absolute to the exclusion or subordination of all other interests." Justice Burger
speaks about no matter the purpose of the law or how important it may be for... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Due to the case consisting solely of the action of marriage, and since marriage is a legal contract between two individuals, it must be addressed. The
Court believes that the Liberty of Contract is a fundamental Constitutional right due to the Fifth Amendment's incorporation in Lochner v. New York
(1905). The Justices in this case found that the right to contract existed in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Court today agrees
with Justice Peckham's opinion and the rest of the majority, in that, the right to contract may not be infringed, for it is a constitutional right under the
Fourteenth Amendment. When it comes to this particular case of Polygamy, the court defines marriage as a civil contract between two individuals.
Limiting a contract to two people is infringing on this fundamental liberty. In Lochner v. New York (1905) the court upheld the right of employees to
enter into contracts with their employers, therefore we upheld this verdict and find the State of Utah violating the individual's right to

Lochner Vs New York Case Study
Lochner versus New York (1905) Included a New York Law that constrained the hours that a dough puncher could work fourteenth Amendment due
procedure provision disallowed "absurd, superfluous and discretionary impedance with the privilege and freedom of the person to contract." Used to
discredit business regulation until "the switch in time that spared none" in 1937 Griswald versus Connecticut – 1965. Included a law which forbids a
specialist from administering contraceptives. 7/2 choice yet had no sacred premise for the choice. ninth correction – the specification in the
Constitution of specific rights might not be interpreted to deny or decry others held by the individuals. first, third, fourth, fifth – penumbra of security

I Believe that Piracy Should Be Legal
1. I strongly believe that piracy should be legal. To begin with, the overseeing of private distribution is regulated without set standards and guidelines,
almost arbitrarily, and only exists because there exists the assumption that piracy negatively impacts the people that put in work to produce the goods
or services in question. From the business standpoint, the driving stance behind those that are against piracy is that piracy is equated to stealing. This is
an unreasonable fallacy when it comes to online piracy. It is understandable in the real world, using a car as an example, if you steal a car; the
original is no longer there. However, if you were to pirate a movie or a textbook, it is still available for purchase from the creator. Parallels cannot be
drawn between online piracy and the real world. Additionally, many multiplayer computer games on the internet are free to play, and the video game
industry is thriving. The flagship example would be in the case of Game of Thrones. Game of Thrones is the most pirated object that exists on the
internet, and the creators of the show are proud to announce that more than half of its audience watches the show illegally. Given this information,
HBO (the network that owns Games of Thrones) still made more revenue during the last quarter of the 2013 year than its biggest competitor (Netflix)
and that's with Netflix having a larger customer pool and no problems with piracy. Chances are, if one is going to pirate something, they

Muller vs. Oregon Essay
Muller vs. Oregon As the economic changes swept through America with the Industrial Revolution, so did society and the traditional roles of men
and women. These changes hit the lower class women particularly hard because not only did they have to work long hours at a factory; they also
had to maintain the household as traditions required of women. With all of these responsibilities that women now had, perhaps the strain hit women
because rarely had they been required to do so much. Oregon saw this and created a law in 1903 that stated that women were only allowed to work a
maximum of ten hours a day. Similar laws had been passed in other states so it made some people wonder, did the Oregon law violate the women's
freedom of... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Business owners in Oregon did not have to worry about overworking their employees because if they grew sick and unable to work then there would
be another to take his or her place. However, when the law was passed, that stated that women who worked in factories, work no more than ten hours
a day; the owners had to be more careful of how many hours they demanded of their female employees lest they create a lawsuit.
Curt Muller, an owner of Great Laundry, on September 4, 1905, required one Mrs. E. Gotcher to work more than ten hours in one day. Joe Haselbock
who was a superintendent at Great Laundry reported this offense. There was information filed on September 18 and with section 3 of the stature
violated, he was to pay a fine of no less than ten dollars and no greater than twenty–five dollars.
This was appealed until it reached the Supreme Court for Muller's reasoning that the law passed by the state of Oregon was unconstitutional, therefore
he should not have to pay the fine. Written in his brief, he states:
"(1) Because the stature attempts to prevent persons, sui juris, from making their own contracts, and thus violates the provisions of the Fourteenth
Amendment, as follows:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any
person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the

Sample Supreme Court Case
In United States constitutional law, substantive due process allows courts to protect certain rights deemed fundamental from government interference,
even where procedural protections are present. The Courts have identified this protection from the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments. In the Fifth Amendment it says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or
indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces..." While the Fourteenth Amendment says, "No state shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privilege or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The court started to show this in the case of Williamson v. Lee Optical in 1955. In Oklahoma, a law was passed to prevent people who were not
licensed optometrists from fitting lenses for eyeglasses. The Lee Optical Company challenged this law saying it violated their rights under the Due
Process Clause. The Supreme Court decided against Lee Optical because they believed it was the legislature, not the courts, decision to balance the
advantages and disadvantages of the new requirements. The days are gone where the Supreme Court uses the Due Process Clause to strike down laws
put in place by the state governments. I personally do not agree with the change because I think the Supreme Court should overturn certain laws that
effect the way employers run their businesses and handle their

Compare And Contrast Muller V. Oregon
In the midst of the Lochner era, many men, women, and children were forced to work long hours with minimal pay. The national government
struck down state laws that standardized work regulation in order to promote a free economy. However, a new work precedent was set when
Muller v. Oregon was decided upon. In Muller v. Oregon, Justice Josiah Brewer, along with the unanimous consent of the Supreme Court, decided
to enforce a labor law on the basis of sex. Curt Muller was fined for forcing a woman to work more than ten hours and the Supreme Court upheld the
charge because women are perceived as physically weaker than males at the time. (Brewer 82). This case used the hegemonic idea of the male
patriarch in order to support the usage of labor... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Oregon decision, a precedent for labor hour laws was set based on genders. With the Industrial Revolution booming, many people have been
looking for jobs at factories. With the factories, cheap labor is easy to find but the working conditions are harsh and the hours are long for
minimal pay; one job is hard to support a family. As Woodrow Wilson put it, "There was a time when corporations played a very minor part in our
business affairs, but now they play the chief part, and most men are the servants of the corporations" (Wilson 41). Labor laws are definitely
needed during the Lochner era because many people were subjugated with terrible work because they needed to be able to support their family.
Muller v. Oregon jumpstarted the nation into the transition for safer work and was a huge step for lining the nation into a safe haven for
everyone. However, the execution of a safer world was inadequate because of its repercussions. With the hegemonic male patriarch in society,
women are viewed as subservient in our society. The gender formation with amount of physical strength has translated to women being perceived as
weaker and needing fewer hours in order to survive. They are constantly seen as weak because a "woman's physical structure and the performance of
maternal functions place her at a disadvantage in the struggle for subsistence is obvious" (Brewer 83). People view giving birth as females' behaviors
because males cannot give birth. Because women give birth, society inherently gives women the job of taking care of their offspring. Men have an
inborn personality of independence and apathy; because women do not share the same characteristics, they view females as inferior. Men have
synonymously put child birth and taking care of children as one value for women, making them inferior because males are not born with that
characteristic of care. History has shown repeatedly that women are seen as weaker and this case further justifies this fact.

Muller V. New York (1908)
During the United States transition from agrarian towns to urbanization, the Supreme Court fluctuated its stance on the extent of legislative power
while regulating the workplace and economy. The courts rulings began by protecting what it considered basic liberty then adjusted to regulating the
industrialization of the time. Early decisions favored business owners and opposed labor unions. Employers began making yellow dog contracts which
forbade employees from joining labor unions. Labor Unions were committed to improving work conditions by striking for pay raises and maximum
hours. The business owner's prevention of hired individuals to join unions faced challenge in Adair v.United States (1908). The Supreme Court
invalidated bans on yellow dog contracts declaring them incoherent with the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Such laws included maximum hours employees could work in a week. In Lochner v. New York (1905) the Supreme Court struck down time restrictions
and declared them a violation to The Fourteenth Amendment under the due process clause. Lochner coincided with Adair in overturning a check on
businesses, yet inconsistencies followed displaying the court's slow transition. Although the Court ruled in favor of the employer in Lochner, a later
decision in Muller v. Oregon (1908) the ruling fell against the business owner. The court concluded a fine placed on Muller for his failure to comply
with Oregon law's concerning women's work hours was constitutional. Though the later ruling seemingly contradicts the first, due to legal president
argued, Muller did not overturn Lochner. The Brandies Brief which echoed the modernization of the time, not only included law, but phycological
reasoning. The weaker status of the female anatomy enabled lawmakers to continue enforcing time restrictions on women for their health and in turn
society's

Lochner V New York Summary
: In 1937 Washington passed a law that set a minimum wage for women and minors to earn wages. Plaintiff Elsie Parrish was employed as a maid at the
hotel owned by the defendant West Coast Hotel Co. Ms. Parrish and her husband brought suit against the company in state court, to recover the wage
she did not receive under the new wage regulation. The defendant denied the suit claiming that the new law violated the company's due process right
under the 14th amendment; to me able to contract freely. Procedural History: After Washington State upheld the defendants claim, Parrish appealed the
case to the Supreme Court. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the State court's ruling however, West Coast Hotel Co. then appealed the case to
the U.S. Supreme... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
While driving Curtis Campbell the defendant, chose to pass six vans on a two–lane highway. Another driver was Todd Ospital, who was approaching
from the other side. Moreover, to avoid a head on collision with the defendant, Ospital swerved over into the shoulder of the highway lost control of
his vehicle and crashed in to driver Robert Slusher. In result Ospital was killed, and Slusher was permanently disabled, meanwhile the Campbell's
escape without a scratch. Being charged for wrongful death the defendant believed he was not at fault, however evidence differed his claim. The
Campbell's insurance company decided to deny the offer made by Slusher & Ospital estate for a settlement of "50,000 ($25,000 per claimant)". (Oyez)
Which lead the defendant to be found completely at fault, and judgment went back up to up to $185,849.( Cornell Law). Three years later the
defendant, Slusher, and made an agreement that they would not speak against Mr. Campbell; and in exchange the defendant would sue the insurance

The Lochner V. New York (1908) Case
At the point in time right before both the Lochner v. New York (1905) case and the Muller v. Oregon (1908) case, women's equality to men in terms of
the law were present but virtually non–existent. Women were being held to a separate standard than men. However, this was actually how they were
meant to be seen in the eyes of the philosophers that developed our constitution, declarations of all sort, and most of the legal history we know to this
day. These philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean–Jacques Rousseau, and John Locke are famous for their contributions to the laws today. They
believed that every man had his natural rights, and that women could not be treated equal do to their "inner nature". These philosophers stated that
women should... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
New York (1905) case involved a New York law that limited bakers to a ten
–hour day and a sixty–hour work week. This law was said to protect the
health of bakers. The case was won by a 5–4 victory. Lochner won this case because New York was unable to prove that baking was any different in
regards to health than any other job that the citizens of New York were employed in, which allowed them to prove that there was really no threat to
the public welfare. One of the arguments that NY Attorney General Julius M. Mayer stated that "long hours were detrimental to bakers' health." He
was unable to show a correlation to the support his statement which caused the Supreme Court to reject his claim and confirm that "although freedom
of contract could have limited, there was also limits to the exercise of the police power." In 1905, the Justice Rufus Peckham stated that "protective
legislation was unconstitutional for bakers because they were not wards of the state or unequal in intelligence or capacity to men." This case set the
stage for the Muller v. Oregon case.
This decision reinforced the Lochner case because like the Muller case, it was against protective legislation. It did not provide the necessary protective
legislation to men as well as women. Creating an inequality in terms of gender and the law. Another way that it reinforced the Muller case was because
their stance was maintained and the position stayed against the general protective legislation but exemplified women by creating

Impeachment : A Formal Process
Nguyen Nguyen
Government 2306
Professor Robert Bexar Chapter summaries 7&8 Chapter 8 Impeachment is a formal process in which an official was accused of illegal activities, the
results of which, depending on the country, which may include the removal of that official from office as well as penalties criminal or civil. Cut is
when the representatives decided to send the president or other government in the Senate to test to see if they are suitable to continue to hold their
positions. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached, but they have been found fit to resume presidential terms of senators. Senatorial
courtesy has to ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Two senators are appointed centrally governor, and two representatives appointed by the speaker. In addition, the chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee and the issue of state and head of the House Appropriations Committee and the ways and means of serving as member of the Board. Board
of Directors appointed budget director, who prepared the budget request of all state agency expenditures and appropriation bills for them. At each
regular session of parliament and particularly directors submit legislative budget estimates, the results of many analytical staff of each agency budget
requests. Legislature budget to maintain partial legislative program review conducted a comprehensive review of state agency programs and activities
and compile the performance reports for the legislature. These reports help to monitor the effectiveness and efficiency of each state agency and assist in
budget decisions. The Managing Board is also responsible for deciding the constitutional spending cap. The staff in the legislative budget office
provided support Committees various legislative appropriations, provide information on trends in revenue and expenditure, financial preparation notes
determine the impact to revenue or expenditure various legal fees, and issuing financial statements and the proposed legislation. Another way to
explain a

Case Briefs: Granholm V. Heald
Case Briefs Granholm v. Heald Facts The case name is Granholm v. Heald. In this case, the Michigan and New York states allowed people to sell wine
only inside their states, and restricted them from selling between other states. Other states sued the two states for violating the commerce clause, which
strengthen that commerce should be made in and out–of–state. (Find Law, n. d.) Relevant issue(s) Where the Michigan and New York states right to
forbid inter–states commerce of wine in their states? Holding(s) No. The New York and Michigan states were not right to forbid inter–states commerce
of wine to happen, for the following reasons: According to Find Law (n. d.), the commerce clause states that commerce should be made in and out of
states. The two states were both wrong, since they were violating the commerce clause. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
d.), the states did not show reasons that they could not meet their objectives without discriminating importation and exportation from other states.
Reasoning According to Find Law (n. d.), "The District Court sustained the scheme" in favor of Michigan. Then, The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
"reversed" against the Michigan state, claiming that there was nothing to prove that the state could not meet its objective without discriminating
importation. On the other hand, the federal district court "granted the plaintiffs summary judgment". The Supreme Court held that the two states' law
violated the commerce clause and they did not have the authorization to do restrict out–of–state wine commerce. (Find Law, n. d.)

Examples Of Substantive Due Process
Substantive Due Process of LochnerWhen including a bill of right, James Madison, consciously added the Ninth Amendment to assure individuals that
the listed rights in Constitution were nowhere near exhaustive. Concerns about too much power from a federal government, Madison wrote the Bill of
Rights as a restriction against federal since states had their own bill of rights. However, this left states to act as they wished without checks from the
federal government. Through the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment, congress had hoped to safeguard individual rights from states as well. Its
vague language, though, left too much room for interpretation and ushered in what many saw as a blatant disregard for textual understanding the
Constitution.... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Specifically, Lochner was indicted for sheltering liberty of contract, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, under this clause. However, Bernstein
shows that substantive due process was rooted the "long–standing" idea that people have natural rights and government had limited power. In the
famous pre–Civil War case, Scott v Sanford, the notion of substantive due process was first conceived and accepted. Banning slavery in the
territories was considered taking property without due process. If certain legislation are allowed to be ruled 'not valid as legislation' then due
process of law suggests more than a procedural review of the law but also challenging a law's validity and its right to exist. Perhaps the crux of
"substantive" part of due process issue lies somewhere in boundaries drawn between the role of legislature and judge. Bernstein states that "enforcing
the principles of due process of law required judges to carefully scrutinize the purpose of legislation and the mean employed to achieve legislative ends
(Bernstein,10)." Through precedents, careful reasoning and scrutiny of doctrine, justices invalidated New York's hours legislation. In addition, though
freedom of contract does not appear in the Constitution and though narrowly construed and controversial, the idea of freedom of contract was already
part of a larger argument. Bernstein states that freedom of contract came from the idea that government had no right to enforce class legislation claims
and hours legislation in bakeries served as class legislation. Prior to Lochner, the Supreme Courts had used the due process clause to enforce naturals
rights from the states. Freedom of contracts was not just a convenient "construct"of these natural rights but a right that surfaced as a

Robert Mccloskey Case
In 1788, the ratification of the United States Constitution sought to establish the fundamental aspects of the nation's government, laws, and protections
of its citizens' unalienable rights. Robert G. McCloskey's The American Supreme Court (2016) explains that, during this period, the prospects of the
Supreme Court were essentially unknown. As time progressed, however, the Court began strengthening its legitimacy with its decisions in major
landmark court cases which, in turn, established its crucial role in shaping the judicial interests and values of the nation. As such, McCloskey (2016)
traces the country's judicial history by highlighting the Court's great transitional periods regarding state rights, nation rights, property rights, and
slavery. By the start of the 20th century, however, discrepancies began to emerge with the rise of... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The justices, however, would begin to practice a new constitutional concept, referred to as the substantive due process of law, to examine business
regulations implemented by a state's police powers (Hall and Patrick 2006, 68). The new concept allowed the Court to determine whether or not
the procedures imposed by legislative actions of the state, such as the Bakeshop Act of 1895, negatively impacted economic liberty. Aside from the
sanitary conditions imposed, the Bakeshop Act of 1895 set boundaries on the total amount of work hours per week, limiting the hours bakery
employees could work "to ten per day and sixty per week" (68). Hall and Patrick (2006) note that most bakery employees worked more than 100
hours in a week. While the motives behind the legislative action varied, the law brought forth sincere concern for maintaining a healthy workforce as
well as quality control for baked goods. Not all bake shop owners, however, followed the new

Charles Schneck

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Annerys Sanchez

More from Annerys Sanchez (7)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Charles Schneck