Name: Zaid Alkhatib

John Marshall Harlan

John Marshall was popular conservative icon who was known for practicing jurisprudence in the

form of activism and restraint in the supreme court. He played a role of an associate justice

between the 1877 to 1911. Marshall worked as a special assistant attorney general between 1927

to 1930. Through his entire life, he served as a great justice and he even received recognition

from the president when he was appointed to fill in the seat for Judge Augustus Noble Hand (the

late).

Sullivan v. New York Times

This is a case that took place between Sullivan who was the then Public Safety Commissioner

and New York Times in the 1960s. This was after the New York Times published an ad that was

meant to defend Martin Luther’s perjury charges. Sullivan felt like the ad targeted him and filed

a case in the court of law which he won. This case is of significance in history in that it shows

how Alabama’s libel law infringed the freedom of speech and that of protection of the press.

Gitlow v. US

This is a case that made Gitlow to be arrested in the year 1919 since he was distributing ‘Left

Wing Manifesto’ which called for strikes to establish socialism. The case was argued in the year

1923 and decided in 1925. His conviction was affirmed by both the appellate division and the

New York Court of Appeals. The historical significance of this case was that it helped to

ascertain whether the government can prevent a state from punishing a political speech that calls

for overthrowing of the government violently.

Feme covert

Feme-covert, a term contemporary to the year 1805, referred to the legal status of married

women. Femes-covert were, in the context of the law, considered to have no free will, as they

were subject to the decisions made by their husbands - they “had no recognized legal identity”

(Brown, 139). During the 1805 case of Martin v. Massachusetts, the justices resolved that the

seizure of land from the Martin family was illegal. To make this decision, the justices drew from

the wording of the Massachusetts Confiscation Act of 1779, in addition to the practical

enforcement of similar laws and the socio-political climate to derive the original intent of the

Confiscation Act.

Slaughterhouse Cases

The Slaughterhouse Cases were a series of course cases, leading to the landmark Supreme Court

case. The context of the cases includes Reconstruction politics, the hostility of Republican

politicians by white Southerners in the late 19th century, and the rise of industrial capitalism.

The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) restricted the "benefits and resistances" of U.S. citizenship

ensured by the recently authorized Fourteenth Amendment. When numerous rights were given

and managed by states instead of the government, the Court's choice applied the Amendment just

to those rights unequivocally illuminated in the Constitution.

Essay Question

The First Amendment has provisions; freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom

of speech, and freedom of assembly. Like all other parts of the constitution, the First Amendment

protects against the government, not individuals. Legislation can limit freedom of speech on

topics such as fighting words, words that incite criminal act, words that incite an imitate
unlawful response, obscene language, false advertising, and words that are spoken on special

property such as military bases and schools. Government employees are limited in their freedom

of speech. For example, police officers are allowed to voice their opinions in their personal lives

as long as it does not interfere with their job. In many occasions, first amendment has been

violated because of the infringement of freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of

religion.

The provision of freedom of press was infringed in the case of Carmody and the police.

The police lured a judge to validate search warrant which in real sense was not to be given since

Carmody is a recognized journalist who has had a police pass for 16 years and is protected under

California's Shield Law. The police should know that Carmody was simply doing his job and his

work is to share information which he gets whether it is the truth or not. The police infringed his

right by use of force during arrest and breaking into his house and vandalizing his work tools.

The provision of freedom of expression was infringed in the case of Abrams v. United

States in 1919. Jacob Abrahams and other four of his friends were convicted for having thrown

leaflets out of the window that criticized the move of the president for sending the American

troop into Russia and they were calling for a strike. They were convicted for violating the

espionage act and this is not in accordance with the first amendment. Every member has the

freedom of speech and in this case, their freedom of speech was infringed.

The provision of the freedom of religion was infringed in Braunfeld v. Brown (1961). In

this case, the court took a gander at whether a Pennsylvania "blue law"- which permitted just

particular kinds of stores to be open on Sundays-disregarded the Free Exercise Clause of the

First Amendment by forcing an undue monetary weight on individuals from the Orthodox Jewish

people group, whose faith expects them to close their organizations from dusk Friday to sunset
Saturday. In a 6-3 choice, the Court held that the blue law did not damage the Free Exercise

Clause, as it had a mainstream premise and did not make religious practices unlawful.

As discussed above, the three cases explain how the provisions of the first amendment

was infringed. There are many cases that discuss how first amendment was infringed. It is a fact

that everyone has a freedom of speech, religion, and of assembly. The press should also be

treated in a better way because they also have a freedom under the first amendment.

Extra Credit

The case that has made the greatest impression to me is the case of Abrams v. United

States. I felt so touched when I read through this case since, I feel that everyone has a right to

express themselves. It is not right to arrest someone because they express themselves. This case

made a great impression to me because a friend of mine was arrested not long ago because he

said a sentence which the police felt was offensive, yet it was not. The freedom of speech has to

be respected.