Religious Neutrality and the Government’s Freedom of Speech in the Jurisprudence of the us Supreme Court

2015 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-23
Author(s):  
András Koltay
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The State ◽  
Social Conditions ◽  
Religious Symbols ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
Hard Cases

The issue of the use of religious symbols by the State, the Government, the Municipalities and Courts has emerged as a practical constitutional problem during the last quarter of a century. Contradictory examples of us Supreme Court jurisprudence prove that this issue is among the constitutional ‘hard cases’. The relatively recent appearance of the problem clearly indicates the ways in which American social conditions have changed and the transformation of us society’s attitude to religion.

Judicial Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 31-68
Author(s):  
Jeffrey S. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
The State ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Court Case ◽  
State Laws ◽  
State Constitutions ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Us Constitution

The conventional account of judicial review starts with a US Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison. But judicial review in truth starts with the state courts and the state constitutions, not the US Supreme Court and the US Constitution. Before the US Constitution existed, the state courts established American judicial review and were the first courts to wrestle with the complexities of exercising it. Judicial review also is foremost a structural story, not an individual-rights story. The delegation of power to the judiciary to decide the meaning of our constitutions laid the groundwork for the growth in power of American courts—especially the federal courts, which have become the go-to answer for so many who-decides questions in American government over the last seventy-five years. This chapter begins a search for insights in resolving the dilemma of judicial review by looking at how the state courts innovated the concept and the ways they initially practiced it. It shows that the early state courts were deferential to the democratic branches of government. They rarely invalidated state laws and did so only when these laws violated a clear constitutional rule. That approach offers lessons for federal and state courts alike.

scholarly journals Vėliava – Flag – Drapeau, arba Ir vėl apie žmogaus teises

Teisė ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 83 ◽  
pp. 18-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gediminas Mesonis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Liberal Conception ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Anglo American

Straipsnyje analizuojama, kokią reikšmę turi skirtingos koncepcijos atskleidžiant konkrečios žmogaus teisės turinį. Konstatuojama, kad net „Vakarų“ demokratinėse valstybėse sprendžiant dėl žmogaus teisių turinio nuolat konkuruoja individualistinis ir traibalistinis požiūris į žmogaus teises. Esama koncepcijų dichotomija šiame straipsnyje iliustruojama žodžio laisvės turinio raidos kontekste. Straipsnyje į šios teisės turinio raidą žvelgiama per valstybės vėliavos teisinį statusą, analizuojant Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų Aukščiausiojo Teismo jurisprudencijos ir kitų šalių teisinio reguliavimo patirtį. Konstatuojama, kad anglų–amerikiečių (liberalioji) žmogaus teisių ir laisvių koncepcija, spręsdama žmogaus teisės turinio problemą, prioritetą linkusi atiduoti konkretaus asmens, o ne grupės interesui.The article analyses the significance of different conceptions in disclosing the content of a concrete human right. It is stated that even in “western” democratic states, when one decides regarding the content of human rights, there is continuous competition between the individualistic and tribalistic approach to human rights. The existing dichotomy of these conceptions is illustrated in the context of the development of the content of freedom of speech. In the article the development of the content of this right is considered through the legal status of the flag, while analysing the experience of the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court and that of legal regulation of other countries. It is stated that the Anglo-American (liberal) conception of human rights, while deciding the issue of the content of a human right, tends to give priority to the interest of a concrete person, but not that of a group.

A discursive analytical path of appellate court opinions: evaluation of ideological positioning in Bush v. Gore 2000

2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruina Chen ◽  
Haitao Liu
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Appellate Court ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Language And Law ◽  
Hard Cases

AbstractAppellate court opinions are written records based on the debates and discussions on hard cases among nine Justices in the US Supreme Court. This important genre type resists any easy paradigm of examination due to its extreme complexity in both language and law. In this paper, we propose an analytical path built upon White’s framework (

A History of Censorship in the United States

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6
Author(s):  
Jennifer Elaine Steele
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Digital Age ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
The United States ◽  
Intellectual Freedom ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
History Of

Censorship is a centuries-old issue for the United States. The importance of intellectual freedom and the freedom of speech is particularly evident in libraries, organizations dedicated to the access and spread of information. Issues regarding censorship and intellectual freedom have even reached the US Supreme Court. The following essay serves as a history of censorship in the United States, particularly in its libraries, and how the same issues of censorship have now transitioned into the digital age.

Shorter Articles, Comments, and Notes: ‘Clear and Present Danger’: Responses to Terrorism

2005 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vaughan Lowe
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Socialist Party ◽  
Military Recruitment ◽  
Oliver Wendell Holmes ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Clear And Present Danger ◽  
General Secretary

It was Oliver Wendell Holmes who used the words ‘clear and present danger’ in the judgment of the US Supreme Court in the Schenk case in 1919.1 The Court upheld the conviction of Charles Schenk, general secretary of the American Socialist Party, under the 1917 Espionage Act, which prohibited attempts to obstruct military recruitment. Schenk had distributed leaflets allegedly calculated to cause insubordination and obstruction among recruits. He argued that his conviction was incompatible with the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

scholarly journals The Application of Legal Maxim “King Can Do No Wrong” In the Constitutional Law of UK & USA: An Analytical Study

2020 ◽  
Vol V (II) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Salman Farooq ◽  
Musab Yousufi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
British Empire ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
Analytical Study ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government ◽  
Full Force ◽  
The Uk

The legal maxim “King can do no wrong” was in full force in the English constitutional law ever since the emergence of British Empire. The doctrine provided absolute immunity to the Crown. The king started losing his absolute prerogatives, in centuries long battle for power among the Crown and lord businessmen, which eventually resulted in the concept of liable government in the UK in the shape of the crown proceedings act 1947. On the contrary the US constitutional law is silent about the presidential immunity, following the maxim “no one, even the government is above the law”. However, the US Supreme Court is expanding the application of this doctrine by granting the immunity to the president in cases where his act falls within the constitutionally assigned duties along with negating it in cases where the act of president falls outside the outer perimeters of his constitutionally assigned duties.

3. Political Power, Authority, and the State

Politics ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Ferdinand ◽  
Robert Garner ◽  
Stephanie Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Max Weber ◽  
The State ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
Good Thing ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
German Sociologist

This chapter examines power and authority, two central concepts in politics, in relation to the state. It first defines power in the context of authority, taking into account the distinction between them by citing the role of the US Supreme Court as an example. It then considers the classic threefold typology of authority proposed by German sociologist Max Weber, namely: traditional authority, charismatic authority, and legal–rational authority. It also addresses some conceptual questions about power; for example, whether power is the same as force, whether it must be exercised deliberately, whether it is a good thing, or whether we can eliminate it. The chapter goes on to explore the methodological problems inherent in the measurement of power, particularly in relation to the theories of the state such as Marxism, pluralism, elitism, and feminism. Finally, it describes Stephen Lukes' three dimensions of power.

Fines, Fees/Costs, Forfeitures, and Restitution

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-42
Author(s):  
R. Barry Ruback
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Economic Sanctions ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
The Us ◽  
Us Supreme Court ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The Government

Chapter 2 discusses the primary types of economic sanctions by focusing on the three purposes of economic sanctions: (1) punishing the offender (fines), (2) funding the government (fees and forfeitures), and (3) compensating the victim (restitution). Although these three purposes are ostensibly independent, in practice compensating the government or the victim can also mean punishing the offender. Because state and local governments have in recent years focused on using economic sanctions to fund the criminal justice system, there is some detailed discussion about fees and forfeitures. The chapter also examines the constitutional status of economic sanctions as outlined in court decisions, particularly the US Supreme Court. There is a brief overview of the laws in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government regarding the three major types of economic sanctions: fines, fees, and restitution. In general, poorer states (particularly in the South) have more fees for compensating the government.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document