Plessy v. Ferguson and the role of dissenting opinions

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson there was a dissenting opinion. A dissenting opinion is when then the Opinion of one or more judge  does not concur with the judgment delivered by the majority of judges hearing the case. Justice Harlan believed thaws the ruling in the case was wrong by allowing a public authority to control where people of what races sit on a train. He believes this goes against the fourteenth amendment of the constitution. He wrote out the losing argument ,because he knew how wrong this ruling was and even comparing it to the case of Dred Scott and knowing how this will have it own place in history.

I believe Justice Harlan makes a very relevant argument. He quotes the fourteenth amendment saying "declared, in legal effect, this court has further said, that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color." In my opinion this clearly violates the fourteenth amendment.

The reaction today in a time where some would say racial tensions are at a all time high, would be very different to the reaction of the people during the time of Plessy v. Ferguson. The dissenting opinion of justice Harlan and his mentality is years before his time. Separate but equal is not a possibility. With equality there is no separation.

Advocates fire back after judge rules filming police isnt a first ammendment right

This ruling of this case comes from a lawsuit from two Philadelphia residents, Richard Fields and Amanda Geraci, who say that their constitutional rights were violated when police took their cameras away as they recorded Police officers in action. Because the two of them did not have a reason to record the officers and were just recording because it looked interesting is different then to record the police to be critical of the government. In a statement by Richard and Amanda s lawyer stated to The Huffington Post on Tuesday that Kearney's decision is contrary to Philadelphia's own policy of allowing citizens to record officers in public no matter what the situation. The reason we have these types of lawsuits in the first place is because police violate that policy,. The most important point of the First Amendment is to ensure that we can criticize our government."

Many Lawyers and Scholars think that the case will be overturned when it hits the appellate courts. There has already been a case where the ruling was in favor of recording police and protecting first amendment rights. Previously the ruling on a similar case held that the 'Constitution protects the right of individuals to videotape police officers performing their duties Protecting that right of information gathering not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally. Those First Amendment principles apply equally to the filming of a traffic stop and the filming of an arrest in a public park was." The ruling on this case is very important because it has such a impact on how people can act with police officers.

Anti-gay ID badages.

A First amendment issue has come up in California as high school students wearing anti-gay ID badges on them. At Shadow High some students are reportedly wearing pins on there  clothes with a rainbow and a red circle with line through it. While this goes against being excepting and understanding times are changing and as a whole we are excepting to many different things one being LGBT the real question is this protected by the first amendment.

In a statement released by the school "After consulting with district level personnel and our legal counsel, it was determined that these students do have the protected right to freedom of speech, just as students portraying rainbows in support of the LGBT would. at any point students are interrupting class time to express their beliefs, they are to be sent to the discipline office with a referral for disruption… We all have a right to freedom of speech, but students also have a right to be educated without fear. This has always been our policy, and we will continue to enforce it." Many people find it offensive that these students would wear these pins and are trying to categorize this as a hate crime.

A hate crime is something that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disabilities. Laura fisher, assistant superintendent said "Sometimes people can be uncomfortable because of an opinion, but that doesn’t mean it’s bullying…We’re ensuring that while their First Amendment rights are protected, it is just as important to protect other students from bullying, harassment and intimidation.” So is this a case of the first amendment or is this a case of a hate crime or bullying. Only time will tell as actions are taken further by social media and parents.

http://lawnewz.com/crazy/anti-gay-badges-create-first-amendment-tensions-at-high-school/

Dred Scott V. Sanford

In the Court case Dread Scott V. Sanford there were many compelling arguments for both sides. Attorney Jack Bridgeport representing Sanford stated that under law Dread Scott was not looked at  as a citizen so it did not matter that he was in a free state it did not apply to him because he was property. Also pointed out by Sanford lawyer is that Dred Scott did not sue while he was in a free slave he sued once he was back in a slave sates after his master passed away. Dread Scott respected his first owner but did not feel the same way about Sanford. Sanfords lawyers case was very strong against Dred Scott.

Representing Dred Scott attorney Joseph Reyes stated that the Missouri comprise was in affect which made slavery illegal so that meant Dred Scott should be a free man. Another argument brought up in the court case was the fact that free states should not have to abide by the law of  a state that was pro slavery. All arguments were heard by the honorable Dean Smith. After reviewing all the facts Sanford won the case the government can not take someone's property and that is what Dread Scott was to Sanford.