Compilation of Supreme Court cases taking away liberty

[socialize_me]

I decided to start a thread to compile as many Supreme Court cases as we could to show that even the judiciary isn't worthy of our support and is hardly an ally in protecting liberty. I'll start off with the Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) case where public schools could compel its students to salute the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis

If anyone would like to contribute to this thread, please feel free to do so :)

[Xenophage]

I decided to start a thread to compile as many Supreme Court cases as we could to show that even the judiciary isn't worthy of our support and is hardly an ally in protecting liberty. I'll start off with the Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940) case where public schools could compel its students to salute the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis

If anyone would like to contribute to this thread, please feel free to do so :)

I refused to say the pledge in school, or even stand. I once got asked by a teacher if I was a Jehova's Witness when I was in elementary school, but I didn't know what that was at the time. I was told I HAD to say the pledge. I asked why. No response. I continued to sit.

[constitutional]

New Jersey v. T. L. O. in which Supreme Court had declared that students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school. So school officials can search its student based on 'reasonable' suspicion and not 'probable' cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O.

Here is an argument a person made against this on C4L's website:


Absolutely it is an infringement on your rights. I don't care what bogus contracts they have you sign or what bogus court rulings are passed. If you refuse to sign or go to their schools do you get to go along on your merry way? No, you are breaking another of their bogus laws.

The 9 members on the supreme court are not the sole arbitrators of what is constitutional. They were never intended to be and earlier presidents ignored their decisions when they felt they were ruling against the constitution.

We need to get this idea that if it is written into law that it is therefore lawful. Call a spade a spade. When a politician, judge, or police officer breaks their oath to defend the constitution then call them on it. I highly suggest everyone either read or listen to "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat which I believe is in the education section or somewhere on this site.

Now the real problem is how do you get your rights back? They have all the guns and control of the courts. I think only when we stop accepting their anti constitutional stances as just and educate ourselves in Austrian economics do we have a chance. We need to become the intellectual elite of this country and help educate the masses. Only when we understand what are rights are and understand the right way to real freedom will we have a chance at change.

[Deborah K]

Roe v Wade = no rights for the unborn.

Engle v Vitale = no more religious freedom at school.

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional. = loss of safety for children. Allowing pediphiles the right to view animated child porn makes about as much sense as a morbidly obese person spending all day watching cooking shows.

[Danke]

Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The decision was widely criticized by American politicians and the general public. Many members of the general public viewed the outcome as a gross violation of property rights and as a misinterpretation of the Fifth Amendment, the consequence of which would be to benefit large corporations at the expense of individual homeowners and local communities. Some in the legal profession construe the public's outrage as being directed not at the interpretation of legal principles involved in the case, but at the broad moral principles of the general outcome.

[Danke]

Also looking further into "Administrative Law."

Columbia Encyclopedia: administrative law,
law governing the powers and processes of administrative agencies. The term is sometimes used also of law (i.e., rules, regulations) developed by agencies in the course of their operation. In the United States, where federal and state governments are intended to maintain a tripartite (legislature, executive, judiciary) balance of powers, administrative law deals primarily with questions of the propriety of the granting of powers (as by Congress) to, or of the assumption of powers (as by executive agencies) by, bodies not originally envisioned as exercising them, and with judicial checks on their actions. Administrative agencies, either independent (e.g., the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Federal Aviation Administration) or part of the executive branch (e.g., the U.S. Department of Agriculture), are created, under constitutional provisions (enabling clauses), by statute or by executive order authorized by statute.

The use of administrative agencies in the United States dates from 1789, when legislation first provided for the administration of customs laws, regulation of oceangoing vessels, and payment of pensions to veterans. But it was in the late 19th cent., with the growth of public transportation and public utilities, that agencies began to play a major role in American life. Passage of the Interstate Commerce Act and establishment of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887 mark the start of modern administrative law in the United States.

Over time, and especially during the New Deal, with the growth of the nation and its government, federal agencies have assumed legislative and quasijudicial functions—rulemaking, adjudication, investigation, supervision, and prosecution—which neither Congress nor the courts could effectively handle. The traditional notion of the separation of powers has thus been blurred. The principle that Congress cannot delegate its legislative powers has been circumvented by having Congress set primary standards and allowing agencies to fill in the gaps. As a result of their proliferation and the growth of their powers, agencies have come to affect activities ranging from collective bargaining to arms control.

In reaction to the great expansion of agency activity, the Federal Register Act of 1935 required the recording of executive agency actions and procedures in the Federal Register, and the collection of this body of “law” in the Code of Federal Regulations began. The Federal Administrative Procedure Act (1946) provided uniform standards of procedure. The APA guarantees the right of judicial review to any person “suffering legal wrong because of any agency action”; in general, administrative actions will be set aside only for abuse of discretion. Under European legal codes, special administrative courts review the actions of administrative agencies; in common law systems, on the other hand, ordinary courts have complete jurisdiction over controversies involving the validity of agency action.

Administrative law (or regulatory law) is the body of law that arises from the activities of administrative agencies of government. Government agency action can include rulemaking, adjudication, or the enforcement of a specific regulatory agenda. Administrative law is considered a branch of public law. As a body of law, administrative law deals with the decision-making of administrative units of government (e.g., tribunals, boards or commissions) that are part of a national regulatory scheme in such areas as international trade, manufacturing, the environment, taxation, broadcasting, immigration and transport. Administrative law expanded greatly during the twentieth century, as legislative bodies world-wide created more government agencies to regulate the increasingly complex social, economic and political spheres of human interaction.



Administrative law in common law countries

Generally speaking, most countries that follow the principles of common law have developed procedures for judicial review that limit the reviewability of decisions made by administrative law bodies. Often these procedures are coupled with legislation or other common law doctrines that establish standards for proper rulemaking. Administrative law may also apply to review of decisions of so-called quasi-public bodies, such as non-profit corporations, disciplinary boards, and other decision-making bodies that affect the legal rights of members of a particular group or entity.

While administrative decision-making bodies are often controlled by larger governmental units, their decisions could be reviewed by a court of general jurisdiction under some principle of judicial review based upon due process (United States) or fundamental justice (Canada). Judicial review of administrative decision, it must be noted, is different from an appeal. When sitting in review of a decision, the Court will only look at the method in which the decision was arrived at, whereas in appeal the correctness of the decision itself will be under question. This difference is vital in appreciating administrative law in common law countries.

The scope of judicial review may be limited to certain questions of fairness, or whether the administrative action is ultra vires. In terms of ultra vires actions in the broad sense, a reviewing court may set aside an administrative decision if it is patently unreasonable (under Canadian law), Wednesbury unreasonable (under British law), or arbitrary and capricious (under U.S. Administrative Procedure Act and New York State law). Administrative law, as laid down by the Supreme Court of India, has also recognized two more grounds of judicial review which were recognized but not applied by English Courts viz. legitimate expectation and proportionality.

The powers to review administrative decisions are usually established by statute, but were originally developed from the royal prerogative writs of English law, such as the writ of mandamus and the writ of certiorari. In certain Common Law jurisdictions, such as India or Pakistan, the power to pass such writs is a Constitutionally guaranteed power. This power is seen as fundamental to the power of judicial review and an aspect of the independent judiciary.

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal analysis for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of its own statutory mandate. Chevron is the Court's clearest articulation of the doctrine of "administrative deference," to the point that the Court itself has used the phrase "Chevron deference" in more recent cases.[1]

Background

Under the Supreme Court's ruling in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S.(1 Cranch) 137 (1803), United States federal courts have the authority to judicially review the statutes enacted by Congress, and declare a statute invalid if it violates the Constitution. But the Constitution sets no express limits on how much federal authority can be delegated to a government agency. Rather, limits on the authority granted to a federal agency occur within the statutes enacted by Congress.

Facts

Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977 to address states that had failed to attain the air quality standards established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Defendant). "The amended Clean Air Act required these 'nonattainment' States to establish a permit program regulating 'new or modified major stationary sources' of air pollution." 467 U.S. at 840. During the Carter administration, the EPA defined a source as any device in a plant that produced pollution. In 1981, after Ronald Reagan's election, the EPA adopted a new definition that allowed an existing plant to get permits for new equipment that did not meet standards as long as the total emissions from the plant itself did not increase. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), an environmental protection group, challenged the EPA regulation in federal court. Chevron, an affected party, appealed the lower court's decision.

Issue

The issue facing the Chevron court, therefore, was what standard of review should be applied by a court to a government agency's own reading of a statute that gives that agency its authority to act.

Holding

The Court, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, upheld the EPA's interpretation. A two-part analysis was born from the Chevron decision (called the "Chevron two-step test"), where a reviewing court determines:

(1) whether Congress intended to delegate to the agency the authority to interpret the statutory language at issue, and

(2) if a statute is ambiguous as to whether or not the interpretation is left to the agency, the court decides whether the agency's interpretation of a statute is reasonable or permissible. If an agency's interpretation is reasonable, then the court will defer to the agency's reading of the statute.

Importance

Chevron is probably the most frequently cited case in American administrative law, though some scholars suggest that the decision has had little impact on Supreme Court jurisprudence[citation needed]. A July 2007 citation check on the LexisNexis Shepard's citation service revealed that Chevron has been cited over 16,260 times in court opinions, law review articles, and other secondary sources.

[Danke]

Further discussion on Administrative Law vs. Common Law from THE RALPH WINTERROWD SHOW (http://www.republicbroadcasting.org/index.php?cmd=archives.year&ProgramID=11&year=8&backURL=index.php%3Fcmd%3Darchives)

[Alawn]

99% of them are bad. Only in the rare 1% do we ever get anything good.