1st-amendment

Jack Korngold — 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

First Amendment — Freedom of Speech Clause 

“Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” 

The concept of free speech per the First Amendment is a critical principle introduced in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The historical context for this clause is rooted in the American experience with the oppressive government of the British Empire. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to satisfy the concerns of the Anti-Federalists to protect the rights of individuals from the power of the central government. Even before the Revolution, journalist John Peter Zenger was prosecuted by the colonial government of Massachusetts for printing unpopular truths about the Governor.

This prosecution reflected a suppression of free speech, which the colonists believed violated their inalienable rights. The common interpretation of free speech rights has been the duty to protect both an individual’s and groups’ ability to express themselves from government intervention across various mediums, including speech, print and online forums. This protection is quite broad and encompasses a variety of beliefs, and includes the protection of opinions that many Americans might find distasteful or offensive.

Even the burning of the American Flag as a form of political speech was protected by the Supreme Court as demonstrated in the ruling of the Texas vs. Johnson case in 1989. The broad interpretation of free speech rights is seen as necessary for the preservation of our democracy. A central debate about this Constitutional right is how restrictive our interpretation should be in its protection. One view is that free speech should be limited for national security purposes — in the Schenck v. United States case, the Supreme Court read the First Amendment in a restricted way so that people could not criticize the government in a time of war and argued that if there was “clear and present danger” to the country, then the speech could be restricted. In contrast, in the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, the court was less restrictive and ruled that high school students could protest the Vietnam War and that teachers could not stop the students from showing their opposition.

This concept of free speech in the First Amendment is clearly an example of an “inalienable right” that earlier thinkers, such as John Locke, thought must be guaranteed by a government based on the Social Contract. This right also reflects Rousseau’s view of the General Will as expressed in his conception of the Social Contract. With respect to how restrictive our interpretation should be, it would be necessary to have high standards for what constitutes a “clear and present danger” to the country as highlighted by the Schenck case.

The standards for enforcement must be strict, otherwise governments could unjustly suppress opposing points of view that represent no real threat to the country, but that interfere with an Administration’s political agenda. Some have also argued for the possibility of amending the language of this clause to remove the protections for “hate speech.” My proposal is that hate speech be more narrowly defined in the Amendment by words or images that incite or provoke violence or harm against a particular group purely because of their identity. Regardless of differences of opinion, the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment is a foundational element of American society, even though we might not always agree on how it is to be interpreted.

 

Bibliography

Vile, John R. “John Peter Zenger.” In The First Amendment Encyclopedia, edited by Middle Tennessee State University. Middle Tennessee State University, 2009. Last modified 2009. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1235/john-peter-zenger.

 

There was no information on John Peter Zenger in the Oyez Archive, and so, I cited an outside source. All of the other cases however, are from the Oyez Archive.

Noah Khalid: Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

The Elections Clause is in the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. The motivation behind the Elections Clause was to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the states in regulating elections for members of Congress. The founding fathers of the Constitution sought to create a system that would ensure fair and consistent elections while preventing abuses and potential corruption.

The Elections Clause is a constitutional ‘provision’ that gives states the primary responsibility to regulate and control elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. States have the power to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of these elections, but Congress can make or alter state regulations. However, Congress has the ultimate authority and can pass federal laws that can override state statutes. This Clause was created to prevent unfair election policies and to make a functioning national government. However, both states and Congress have limitations on their power, like not being able to violate other constitutional provisions or to impose substantial burdens on the right to vote.

The Constitution grants states the power to establish electoral rules, an important factor that can significantly influence election outcomes. By manipulating factors like district boundaries, measures to protect electoral integrity, and vote counting standards, the people in charge of setting election rules can favor one political party over another. The founding fathers of the Constitution initially assigned the state legislatures and eventually Congress with regulating congressional elections, but the modern Supreme Court has expressed doubt in the ability of partisan legislatures to look over the process in a fair way. Thus, the suitability of elected partisan legislatures for making such decisions is debatable compared to supposedly nonpartisan bodies. Historically, Congress has rarely used its power to override state regulations, which allowed election administration to be primarily handled by the states. However, in recent times, Congress has more often imposed requirements on states for federal elections, like the criteria for districting and voter registration standards.

The Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona case is a great example of how congress can step in and override state regulations. Despite this example, Congress generally respects state laws and assumes they will control the practical aspects of federal elections. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Elections Clause gives Congress significant power to regulate federal elections without a conflict with state law. The Court has also highlighted the state’s authority to structure federal elections within the boundaries of their own laws. Although states have individual power, the final authority depends on the Congress, which creates a unique relationship between the states and the federal government in election regulation.

The Elections Clause reflects the Enlightenment principles like popular sovereignty and democratic government by allowing the state legislatures the power to regulate the “Time, Place, and Manner” of congressional elections. This clause also includes the belief that political authority should be received from the consent of the government and that fair electoral processes are vital to ensuring a representative government. I personally don’t think that the elections clause should be amended, however, I think that the congress should step in and take more action. They are granted with a lot of important power but do not seem to use it in effective ways.

Noah Khalid: Elections Clause

Video

Written Component

 The Elections Clause is in the United States Constitution, specifically Article I, Section 4, Clause 1. The motivation behind the Elections Clause was to establish a balance of power between the federal government and the states in regulating elections for members of Congress. The founding fathers of the Constitution sought to create a system that would ensure fair and consistent elections while preventing abuses and potential corruption.

The Elections Clause is a constitutional ‘provision’ that gives states the primary responsibility to regulate and control elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate. States have the power to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of these elections, but Congress can make or alter state regulations. However, Congress has the ultimate authority and can pass federal laws that can override state statutes. This Clause was created to prevent unfair election policies and to make a functioning national government. However, both states and Congress have limitations on their power, like not being able to violate other constitutional provisions or to impose substantial burdens on the right to vote.

The Constitution grants states the power to establish electoral rules, an important factor that can significantly influence election outcomes. By manipulating factors like district boundaries, measures to protect electoral integrity, and vote counting standards, the people in charge of setting election rules can favor one political party over another. The founding fathers of the Constitution initially assigned the state legislatures and eventually Congress with regulating congressional elections, but the modern Supreme Court has expressed doubt in the ability of partisan legislatures to look over the process in a fair way. Thus, the suitability of elected partisan legislatures for making such decisions is debatable compared to supposedly nonpartisan bodies. Historically, Congress has rarely used its power to override state regulations, which allowed election administration to be primarily handled by the states. However, in recent times, Congress has more often imposed requirements on states for federal elections, like the criteria for districting and voter registration standards.

The Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona case is a great example of how congress can step in and override state regulations. Despite this example, Congress generally respects state laws and assumes they will control the practical aspects of federal elections. The Supreme Court has recognized that the Elections Clause gives Congress significant power to regulate federal elections without a conflict with state law. The Court has also highlighted the state’s authority to structure federal elections within the boundaries of their own laws. Although states have individual power, the final authority depends on the Congress, which creates a unique relationship between the states and the federal government in election regulation.

The Elections Clause reflects the Enlightenment principles like popular sovereignty and democratic government by allowing the state legislatures the power to regulate the “Time, Place, and Manner” of congressional elections. This clause also includes the belief that political authority should be received from the consent of the government and that fair electoral processes are vital to ensuring a representative government. I personally don’t think that the elections clause should be amended, however, I think that the congress should step in and take more action. They are granted with a lot of important power but do not seem to use it in effective ways.

Maddy Kim’s Constitution Project

Video

Written Component

According to the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in Amendment I: the federal government will not have a state religion, or support or restrict any religion or religious practice. In the original articles, Article 6, Section 3 provides the only reference to religion and prohibition of a religious test for holding office.

 

The Establishment Clause sought to address the religious tyranny of the British. During England’s reign over the colonies, the Church of England legally required southern colonists to pay religious taxes and often attend church services. Some scholars interpret the clause as a check on religious tyranny. Additionally, due to most of the framers being Deists, the meaning of the clause based on the intentions of the framers indicates that the Establishment Clause aims to avoid persecution. Other scholars assert that the clause is a co-guarantor of religious freedom, designed to reduce the role of religion in American life, and promote the free practice of a variety of religions. These interpretations are two of a variety that have been used in some of the Supreme Court’s best-known Establishment Clause based decisions. In Engel v. Vitale (1962), the Court deemed it unconstitutional for public school children to be led in prayer or read from the bible as the government had no business drafting any formal prayers for any part of its population. 

 

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress will not prohibit the free exercise of a religion. The clause was responding to the fact that much of the population of colonial America consisted of immigrants and oppressed peoples who sought to escape religious persecution and regarded the protection of religious exercise an inalienable right. The freedom to worship in accordance with an individual’s belief was widely supported by many of the American population. The Free Exercise Clause has been interpreted as a claim that religious liberty is equal liberty, and also that free exercise provides necessary protection for diversity and freedom. As explained by Frederik Gediks, a professor of law, the guarantee of free religious exercise was to prevent government discrimination or abuse on the basis of religion. Others maintain that this clause protects human diversity. Though the clause may seem very short and simple, there have been a variety of supreme court cases involving the Free Speech Clause that contradict each other. When discussing religious exemptions including Amish and Jewish practices, the Supreme Court has changed its perspective multiple times (as explained in my video!).