Created by RanDan on Oct 27, 2010
Last updated: 11/02/10 at 01:49 PM
superme court cases has no followers yet. Be the first one to follow.
the McCain/ Fiengold bill was propossed to stop soft money donations.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1674
Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings.
it was a question of the constitution
freedom of speech
whether or not the first amendment protected mail order porn
they said it didn't protect pron but miller wasn't sending porn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v_California
the newspaper wanted to publish an artical and nixion said no. since it direcly influanced the federal government. freedom of press. that it violated the first admendment is there was no clear and imediate danger to the american public. It show that had there been clear danger that the presidnet can restrict our rights. the dissentants said "the imperative of a free and unfettered press comes into collision with another imperative, the effective functioning of a complex modern government"
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.
it was a question of the constitutionality of a law passed by a state
Freedom of speech
a law prohibited the counseling of married couples in the use of contraceptives
the court ruled that together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations , and there fore the Connecticut law was void for breaking these rights.
the case made it possible for rights to be combined to form new ones.
that there was no "right to privacy" and so the law would stand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.
the lower courts had convicted her
fourth admendment
the material was illegally seized
the court said "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."
it proved then need of a search warrent
Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion argued that the majority had wrongly "reached out" to overrule Wolf, saying "[I] can perceive no justification for regarding this case as an appropriate occasion for re-examining Wolf" and complaining that the issue had not been properly briefed. He also felt that the wrong question was brought up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mapp_v._Ohio
Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested for distributing copies of a "left-wing manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under a state criminal anarchy law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute penalized utterences without propensity to incitement of concrete action. The New York courts had decided that anyone who advocated the doctrine of violent revolution violated the law.
since it passed
It was a question of the constitution
freedom of speech
gitlow claimed his right to freedom of speech was being infringed upon
that the fourteenth amendment made it so that new york couldn't limit his speech
you can say anything so as long as it does not infringe on an others rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York
Update Sources