American law Tour (5) - "live" America constitution

   Beauty Lecturer Mason second day course is about America constitution introduction. The constitution, are we engaged in the practice as a dragon, as if very distant. But listen to the Mason course, after a preliminary understanding of the USA constitution, I deeply feel this is a "live" constitution.

   The reason that she is alive, because she was not put it away unheeded, regarded as the classic. America constitution does not like an otherworldly immortal, but more like an old woman; she has more than two hundred years old, but still willing to offspring of modern life make gestures; her insight into life, wisdom, warm, lively, and sometimes also some odd, stubborn, and even won't listen to reason. But in any case, she has a natural dignity, children every hour and moment can not ignore her existence, to her full of respect, also would like to turn to the old woman when life problems.

   So, American constitution is how to live, and live is so wonderful? The answer is: justice. America constitution with a vivid judicial decision, will continue their further clarify the connotation, rich, on all aspects of social life have tangible impact.

   Therefore, I do not want to general introduction American constitution to everybody, but through two cases, let you feel the USA constitutional vigor.

   These two cases, one is in 1803 USA constitution of Opening Case, another is the latest case happened in 2012. Two cases spanning more than 200 years of history, for USA constitutional judicature, for its remarkable vitality.

   English data sources in Mason courseware, English good friends can be directly read, took the opportunity to understand American teacher profile cases, Chinese I try to translate, didn't like reading English can directly jump to read Chinese, of course, level of restrictions, the wrong translation the people can not bear the legal responsibility!

CASE1, Marbury v. Madison1803.

Facts:Marbury was appointed to the post of justice of the peace in the District of Columbia by John Adams just before Adams left officeWhen Thomas Jefferson became president, the posts were not confirmedMarbury sued

Issue:Whether an executive appointment made pursuant to the Constitution can be blocked by an Act of Congress

Holding:NoThe Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court can review actions taken contrary to itThis case established the concept of judicial review

Case1, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The case:John Damm, the president at the last moment outgoing, appointed Marbury DC area magistrate. When Thomas Jefferson became president, not on this confirmation. So, Sue marbury.

The focus of controversy:According to the Constitution Act, whether can be the laws made by parliament to overthrow.

Sentence.Whether or not. The constitution has the highest legal effect in the country, the Supreme Court has the power to review the constitutionality of the law. This case established the system of judicial review.

CASE 2Snyder vs..Phelps (2012)

Facts:The family of deceased Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder filed a lawsuit against members of the Westboro Baptist Church who picketed at his funeral. The family accused the church and its founders of defamation, invasion of privacy and the intentional infliction of emotional distress for displaying signs that said, "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" at Snyder's funeral. U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett awarded the family $5 million in damages, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the judgment violated the First Amendment's protections on religious expression. The church members'speech is protected, "notwithstanding the distasteful and repugnant nature"

IssueDoes the First Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased?

HOLDING:Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision in an opinion by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. The Court held that the First Amendment shields those who stage a protest at the funeral of a military service member from liability. Justice Stephen J. Breyer filed a concurring opinion in which he wrote that while he agreed with the majority's conclusion in the case, "I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point." Justice Samuel Alito filed a lone dissent, in which he argued: "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case"

Case2: Schneider v. Phelps

The case:Schneider is a 20 year old Iraqi soldiers killed Matthew Schneider (M atthewSnyder) held a private ceremony, from Kansas, a group of "Baptist Church held protest demonstrations" brand, they protest the sign says "God hates fags", "thank God to kill the soldiers", "God hates you" this slogan.

After the event, Schneider took Phelps to court, reason is the congregation harassed the private funeral, a violation of their privacy, and the emotional and psychological damage they cause.

The judge federal district court decision defendant compensation of $5000000. But the court of Appeals for the fourth circuit, a trial violated the constitution amendment about freedom of religious free speech protection provisions, church words under the protection of the law, "although these remarks very hate".

Focus:At the funeral, to the family of the deceased and shouting slogans, can be protected by the first amendment to the constitution, and not be held to hurt the feelings of others responsibility?

Sentence.The Supreme Court upheld the decision by the court of appeal. Chief justice John G. Roberts draft text of the judgment. The court thinks, the first amendment to the Constitution Applied in military funeral speech, from legal liability. Judge Stephen J. Breyer agree with most, but in addition, he wrote: "I don't think the analysis for the first amendment can only stop". Judge Samuel Alito is one of the few opposition, he insisted: "freedom of speech can not become the evil words hurt the feelings of the case of the license"

Well, write a lot, friends also see tired! Let us take the America constitutional amendment one end. Secretly in the heart to a wish, can not say that. You have to come, people more power!

- Amendment I

- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

Congress shall make no law about the following matters: establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech freedom of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.