Blast from the Pat: Heffernan v. Patterson: The Decision

My first blog post for this class was on the case of a New Jersey police officer who had been demoted after his boss thought he had been showing support for a local campaign that his boss didn't support. Since this is one of my last posts, I thought it would be appropriate to go back and take a look at where the case was today.

As the case made it's way through the court system, it finally reached the US Supreme Court, which released it's ruling earlier this week. The Court found that Heffernan's First Amendment rights had been violated, and that his demotion had been unconstitutional. When Heffernan had presented his case to the lower courts, he had lost the suit. This is because the prior courts had said that picking up a sign for his mother wasn't a use of his First Amendment rights; therefore, there's no way they could have been violated. However, the Supreme Court's 6-2 decision obviously contradicted that of prior rulings. However, the dissenting opinion written by Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia reinforced the prior rulings, saying “Demoting a dutiful son who aids his elderly, bedridden mother may be callous, but it is not unconstitutional,”. Nevertheless, Justice Breyer, a member of the majority opinion wrote that “The upshot is that a discharge or demotion based upon an employer’s belief that the employee has engaged in protected activity can cause the same kind, and degree, of constitutional harm whether that belief does or does not rest upon a factual mistake,”, pretty much, even if Heffernan wasn't expressing his First Amendment rights, his demotion had been based on the assumption that he was, making the action unconstitutional.

All in all, this case was kind of ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as Donald Trumps hair (among other things). I mean really. Look at it.

Brown v. Board of Education: Moot Court

The United States Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education was a monumental case in American history for citizens of this country. In todays class, two teams presented their cases on behalf of Brown and on behalf of the Topeka Board of Education, reenacting this historical case in todays 2016 classroom.

The first arguments were presented by the side or Brown. The team presented five arguments mainly focused on legal grounds, siting the 1875 Civil Rights Act, the Fourteenth Amendment, more specifically the Equal Protection Clause present in the Fourteenth Amendment, and two of the four prior court cases that dealt with the same subject, these cases were Briggs v. Elliott and Gebhart v. Belton.

Ms. Ouayoro presents her arguments for team Board of Education

The second team presented arguments that supported the prior ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson which established to idea of "separate but equal". Instead of focusing on legal arguments, the team representing the Board of Education focused more on moral and ethical views of the situation. They argued for the safety of African-American students, which might be more intently persecuted by groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or by the white population of the newly integrated schools. The team also argued that instead of achieving integration as soon as possible, the government should "go slow" and focus on improving the conditions of black schools so that they may be up to par with the white schools. The team stated in their reasoning that if black students were integrated into white schools they would fall behind due to their prior education being less intellectual than the education received
by white students.  They also argued a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, saying that the educational system is fine how it is. The one legal argument presented by the Board of Education team pertained to the Equal Protection Clause, claiming that equal protection is only applicable to people as a whole, individuals will never truly be equal, that is the circumstance of life.

In all, both teams presented well thought out arguments. However, due to this being a court case, emotion and opinion based arguments fall to legal facts, resulting in the win going to the team representing Brown.

Challkin' It Up: Freedom of Speech on Campus

Chalk may wash away with a little water, but messages written in this temporary substance have a tendency to linger around a bit longer. Earlier this week students at Emory University in Atlanta awoke to a campus covered in chalk graffiti promoting the presidential candidate Donald J. Trump. This expressive action seemed to create a major stir on the campus among supports and non supports alike; this spark seemed to stem from one issue, freedom of speech.

Examples of Pro-Trump graffiti on Emory's campus.

When some students decided to take to the streets and protest in response to the plaster of a Pro-Trump message about the southern campus, they received some pretty underserved backlash. Besides social media outlets such as twitter, the protestors were also called out by some well known news organizations (cough Fox News cough). These responses to the protestors called them out for being just another bunch of college kids crying about how everyone needs to keep it PC (that's politically correct if you're not familiar with the lingo). Here's where these protest haters messed up though: the protestors weren't protesting the Trump chalk drawings all over this southern campus, they were displaying their disapproval of the message behind the candidate promoted. They in no way were using their freedom of speech to attempt to stomp out those with disagreeing views First Amendment rights. Instead the protestors were out there with the goal to unite people in opposition to what the Trump campaign stands for. Pretty much, they were using their freedom of speech to do exactly what it was intended to, disagree with others.

This campaign season has been one of major confrontations and clashes between members of different political parties, along with disagreements between members of the same party who simply support different candidates. It's important for citizens in this country to always respect others political views, even if they don't align with their own. Our O.G. President G. Washington once said that political parties would "likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.” Don't let political labels and different views divide this great country, don't let George down.

Plessy v. Ferguson: The Other Opinion

The court ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson is one you can find in your high school history books, and if you grew up in New York like me, you probably encountered it on you U.S. History regents exam. If there's one thing most kids remember from this case it's the coining of the idea of "separate but equal" AKA one of the most discriminatory rulings in United States history. 

Now, a lot is known about this case and it's outcome, but what about the opinion of the court that didn't make the headline? What about the dissent?

Although the majority opinion of the court was presented but Justice Henry B. Brown, another judge on the case possessed an opinion which contradicted the ruling. Justice John Marshall Harlan authored the dissent of the Plessy v. Ferguson case. In his dissent he says "If a white man and a black man choose to occupy the same public conveyance on a public highway, it is their right to do so, and no government, proceeding alone on grounds of race, can prevent it without infringing the personal liberty of each.", meaning that separate but equal isn't really equal at all.

Harlan makes a good argument, an argument so precise that it is still applicable to race issues that continue to trouble this country today. Although his opinion that "The white race deems itself to be the dominant race in this country" probably wasn't one of much popularity among many people of power in 1896, the truth of his statement still rings true today. 

Perhaps one of the most powerful statements, in my opinion, from Judge Harlans dissent is the following: "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Overall, what this dissent is saying is that the color of one skin, among other characteristics beyond physical appearance, should not justify discrimination. 

Thankfully, this discriminatory ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson was counteracted by the case of Brown vs. the Board of Education, and with this ruling and other political actions, the U.S. is on it's way to becoming the type of country Judge Harlan believed it should have been 120 years ago. 

Do Our Allies Match the United States Values?

The concept of an alliance has been around since the formation of states. People figured out pretty fast that the more people you've got, the more powerful you are. Especially in todays world, an abundance of allies is key to success. This need for allies increases immensely when you're the hegemonic world power, like the United States is today. Usually, when you think of a list of the current allied countries with the U.S., many European and western states come to mind. England, Canada, Germany, France, countries which, today, share our values as a country. However, the United States also has some questionable allies, such as Saudi Arabia.

photo from: https://politicalgraffiti.wordpress.com/category/iraq/

Why would the U.S. be allied with an oppressive regime?

Well, lets be honest, Saudi possess about 40% of the worlds oil: something the U.S. needs. So, Saudi Arabia is our ally, and in exchange we turn a blind eye to violations of human rights. But what happens when citizens here in the U.S. use their freedom of speech to talk about how freedom speech is being crushed in a country the U.S. calls a friend?

While the United States and other western countries speak out against the atrocities committed by the terrorist group known as ISIS (the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or ISIL), Saudi Arabia continues to oppress the rights of their citizens, and imposes sharia law in some ways as drastically as ISIS has. Saudi Arabia also possess a recent history of imprisoning individuals who spoke out against authorities or for political and human rights reforms. In addition, Saudi Arabia has continuously been executing those charged with minor drug possessions.

These actions committed by the Saudi government have led to unrest in the U.S., especially with the revival of diplomatic ties with Cuba, many U.S. citizens believe it's time to reevaluate the U.S.'s relations with Saudi Arabia. And they're not afraid to let their voices be heard.

Freedom to Petition: Is This Campaign Season Stomping It Out?

Protesting is not an idea new to our generation. We grew up hearing stories of our elders protesting events such as Vietnam War, we learned about the O.G. protests like the Boston Tea Party, and then the more recent history of the Civil Rights Movement. We grew up learning that if there was something we didn't believe in, we had a right to get on the soap box about it. Our freedom to petition has been around since 1787. Which makes me begin to question why some politicians, such as Donald Trump, find the idea of protestors at their rallies simply preposterous. With the rise of

tensions coming with the primary elections, more and more protestors are speaking their mind: and more and more are paying a price for it. Peaceful and outspoken protestors alike are being removed from Trump rallies, some just for wearing a shirt showing support for a different candidate, others are being physically assaulted while they're being removed. 

So do Presidential candidates have the right to squash your speech and kick you out? 

Technically speaking, no, unless under a certain set of conditions. This can be explained by taking a look at who the First Amendment protects your from. This who? Well no other than your United States government. In order for your freedom to petition to be considered denied from you, a force of the government has to be the one denying you your voice. And not just any force of government either, who issues to intrusions to detain a protestor and why also come into play. When protestors are at a private event or venue, they can be removed without their rights being violated. Even if these protestors are escorted out by a government official, such as a police officer , if the orders did not come from a government official, but instead the head of a private event, your right to petition isn't applicable to be protected. 

This being said, I suggest taking note how candidates react to protestors. It may not be illegal to suppress someones right to express their opinion, but how your treat people who may not agree with your speaks volumes. Listen to what people are saying with their actions.

The Tech Zone: Is Your Phone Protected by the First Amendment?

My generation is known for its love and dependency of technology. But we're highly attracted to the concept of privacy as well. This attraction to actions without evidence is displayed by use of social media apps such as Snapchat and Yik-Yak, along with the opinion of privacy settings on other apps such and Twitter and Instagram. For how much we love to share on the internet, we're a generation who likes to decide who can or can't see what we're posting, along with having the ability to post anonymously. This mindset can explain why many Millennials and members of Generation Z are intrigued by recent iPhone cases. 

photo from: http://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/14070625/teen-girl-using-iphone-smartphone.html

A recent case in New York argued that Apple did not have to unlock an iPhone for police to use in an investigation to national attention. Apple also had a case regarding one of the San Bernardino shooters who possessed an iPhone, which the Federal Government wanted access into. Apple presented many arguments to support their decision against unlocking the device, one of which was that doing so would violate the phone owners First Amendment Rights. Building off of this argument was presented Apples claim of 'code of speech', referring to the information of the iPhone be presented in the form of technological codes, which Apple claims is a form of speech, therefore protected by the First Amendment. 

Apples points tot he prior ruling of the 2001 case of Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, in which the ruling stated:

"Communication does not lose constitutional protection as "speech" simply because it is expressed in the language of computer code. Mathematical formulae and musical scores are written in "code," i.e., symbolic notations not comprehensible to the uninitiated, and yet both are covered by the First Amendment."

Nevertheless, even with this ruling the idea of codes is still up for debate, but it looks like our phones are safe for now.