Refer to the U.S. Constitution handbook below,

-Choose one case that aReligiousperson would be in favor of, and write one paragraph detailing the reasons why the decision would be supported by a person of faith.

-Choose one case that aHumanistwould be in favor of, and write one paragraph detailing the reasons why the decision would be supported by a Humanist.

NOTE:Roe V. Wadeis not an eligible choice for this assignment.

TWENTY LANDMARK CASES IN SUPREME COURT HISTORY Marbury v. Madison, 1803 \"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void." With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall estab- lished the Supreme Court's role in the new government. Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution. McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 \"Let the end be legitimate . .. and all means which are . . . consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.\" Chief Justice Marshall invoked this phrase to establish the right of Congress to pass laws that are \"necessary and proper\" to conduct the business of the US. govern- ment. Here, the court upheld Congress' power to create a national bank. Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824 When a federal and state law are in conict, the federal law is supreme. Congress and New York had both passed laws regu- lating the steamboat industry. Gibbons had a federal permit for a steamboat business; Ogden had a state permit for the same waters. Siding with Gibbons, the Court said that, in matters of interstate commerce, the \"Supremacy Clause\" tilts the balance of power in favor of federal legislation. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 The Constitution does not consider slaves to be (1.3. citi- zens. Rather, they are constitutionally protected property of their masters, Chief lustice Roger Taney authored this opinion one of the most important and scorned in the nation's history Dred Scott, a slave, had moved with his master to lllinois, a free state. He moved again to a slave state, Missouri, and led suit to gain freedom, under that state's 81 law of \"Once free, always free.\" Taney held that Scott had never been free at all. and cited Constitutional grounds for placing the slavery decision in the hands of the states. In trying to put an end to the slavery controversy, Taney instead sped the nation toward civil war. The decision was later overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment. Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896 lim Crow laws are constitutional under the doctrine of \"Separate but Equal.\" Police arrested Homer Plessy for refusing to leave a railroad car that prohibited "colored" people. Under Louisiana law, Plessy was \"colored\" because he was one- eighth black. The Court ruled that the race-based \"Jim Crow\" laws did not violate the Constitution as long as the states proffered separate but equal treatment. "The Constitution is color blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.\" JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN. FROM THE [ONE DISSENTING OPlNION 1N PLESSY V. FERGUSON Lochner v. New York, 1905 The Constitution bars a state from interfering with an employee's right to contract with an employen The above reasoning led to the \"Lochner Era\" thirty-two years of wrangling between the court and legislatures. Lochner's bakery violated a New York labor law. The court struck down the law, saying that the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause barred states from regulating commerce in this manner. This clause, the Court said, implied that individuals have a fundamenv tal right to contract with employers, and states cannot interfere with that right. Near v. Minnesota, 1931 "The liberty of the press . .. is safeguarded from invasion by state action.\" Although the First Amendment ensures a free press, until this case, it only protected the press from federal laws, not state laws. Minnesota shut down I. M. Near's 82 Saturday Press for publishing vicious antisemitic and racist remarks. In what is regarded as the landmark free press decision, the Court ruled that a state cannot engage in \"prior restraint\"; that is, with rare exceptions, it cannot stop a person from publishing or expressing a thought. West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937 \"The switch in time that saved nine.\" F. D. R. rallied against the Court's holdings in the Lochner era. The Court struck down New Deal laws, designed to pull the country out of the Depression, on grounds that they interfered with a worker's \"ri t to contract." F. D. R. pledged to expand the Court an pack it with pro \"New Deal members. In this case, the Court rejected the Lochner era decisions and said the govern- ment could regulate commerce. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 \"In the eld of public education, the doctrine qf'separate but equal'has no place.\" This unanimous decision marked the beginning of the end for the \"Separate But Equal\" era that started with Plessy, and the start of a new period of American race relations. With Brown, desegregation of public schools beganas did resistance to it. Ten contentious years later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made racial equality a matter of federal law. Mapp v. Ohio, 1961 Evidence that is illegally obtained by the state may not be used against a defendant in court. Until Mapp, only the federal government was barred from using illegally obtained evidence. So when local police entered Dolly Mapp's home without a search war- rant and arrested her for possessing obscene books, her conviction initially stood. The Court overturned her con- viction, however, and extended the Constitutional rule to apply to the states and their subdivisions. \"1 know it when [see it.\" lUSTICE POTTER ST EWART'S DEFINITION OF OBSCENITY IN JACOBELLIS ll OHIQ I964 Baker v. Carr, 1962 \"One person, one vote.\" The above phrase was not authored until a year after Baker, but it has its philosophical roots here. In this case, a group of Tennessee voters sued the state, claiming its voting districts diluted their political power. Until this point, the Court refused to decide this kind of case, leaving such \"political questions\" to the states. Baker, however, held that the states must meet a Constitutional standard for appointment: districts cannot be drawn in such a way that they violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 Defendants in criminal cases have an absolute right to counsel. Too poor to afford a lawyer, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted for breaking into a poolrooma felony crime in Florida. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government must provide free counsel to accused criminals who cannot pay for it themselves. At rst. the ruling applied to felonies only. It was later extended to cover any cases where the penalty was six months imprisonment or longer. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964 To win a libel case, public gures must prove \"actual mal- ice\"on the part of the writer. In 1964, the Times published an ad critical of an elected commissioner of an Alabama city. The com- missioner sued for libel and won. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and said that, to ensure \"unin hibited, robust and wide-open\" debate about public gures, the law must protect writers from libel suits. Thus, unless the words are penned with \"knowing fal- sity\" or \"reckless disregard for the truth," a writer cannot be successfully sued by a public gure for libel. Griswold v. Connecticut, I965 The Constitution implies a right to privacy in matters of contraception between married people. 84 Estelle Griswold, the director of a Planned Parent- hood clinic, broke an 1879 Connecticut law banning contraception. The Court struck down the law, making it a landmark case in which the Court read the Con- stitution to protect individual privacy. This was to be the foundation of further privacy rulings, including the right to privacy in matters of abortion. Miranda \"Arizona, 1966 \"You have the right to remain silent \" After police questioning, Ernesto Miranda con- fessed to kidnapping and raping a woman. The Court struck down his conviction, on grounds that he was not informed of his 5th Amendment right against self- incrimination. Hereafter, the Miranda warnings have been a standard feature of arrest procedures. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973 . The Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to education. In 1968. a group of low-income parents sued San Antonio, claiming the city's wealthy precincts had better schools. The Court upheld the districting plan, saying that the Constitution did not guarantee an education, and upholding this tenet: The Constitution does not compel government to provide services like education or welfare to the people. Rather. it places boundaries on government action. Roe v. Wade, 1973 The Constitutionally implied right to privaty protects a woman's choice in matters of abortion. Norma McCorvey sought an abortion in Texas, but was denied under state law. The Court struck down that law, on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricted the woman's right to choose. The opinion set forth guide- lines for state abortion regulations; states could restrict a woman's right to choose only in the later stages of the pregnancy. Later modied but not overruled, the deci- sion stands as one of the Court's most controversial. 85 United States v. Nixon, 1974 "Neither separation of powers, nor the need for conden- tiality can sustain unqualied Presidential immunity from the judicial process.\" President Nixon sought precisely this type of immunity, rather than relinquishing the famous White House tapes during the Watergate scandal. The Court unanimously rejected his plea as an unconstitutional power play. The House began impeachment proceedings shortly thereafter, and two weeks after the ruling, Nixon resigned. Texas v. Johnson, 1989 The Constitution protects desecration of the ag as a form of symbolic speech. Johnson burned a flag in front of a Dallas building in 1984. He was convicted of violating a Texas law that made it a crime to intentionally desecrate a state or national ag. Justice Brennan wrote for a 5-to-4 majority that \"Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea because society nds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.\" Cruzan v. Missouri Dept. of Health, 1990 While the Constitution protects a person's right to reject life-preserving medical treatment (their \"right to die"), states can regulate that interest if the regulation is rea- sonable. Nancy Cruzan lay in a permanent vegetative state as a result of injuries suffered in an auto accident Her parents sought to withdraw life-sustaining treatment and allow her to die, claiming she'd said this would be her wish under such circumstances. The state refused, and the Supreme Court upheld the state's guidelines for the continuation of medical treatment, which allowed withdrawal of treatment only with clear and convincing evidence that this is what the patient would have wanted. The Court said that, given the need to protect against abuses of such situations, the state can continue life sup- port as long as its standards for doing so are reasonable. 86