Four Cases That Involve Constitutional Law Essay

Length: 4 pages Sources: 1 Subject: Europe's Culture Type: Essay Paper: #21946739 Related Topics: Child Abuse, United States Constitution, First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment

Excerpt from Essay :

Commonwealth v. Johnson..

1. List the facts relevant to whether Gail and/or William Johnson’s were protected by the First Amendment

Gail and William Johnson were convicted for criminal harassment in the state of Massachusetts. State statutes outline specific prohibitions on spoken or behavioral harassment, including the types of cyberharassment techniques used by Gail and William Johnson. The Johnsons claimed that the statute violated First Amendment rights to free speech, claiming that their cyberharassment methods were similar to verbal harassment.

2. Summarize the Commonwealth’s arguments that the Johnsons’ and their friend’s conduct was cyberharassment.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts argued that the Johnsons’ behavior constituted cyberharassment based on several incidents. The first incident was posting the politician’s home address in a Craigslist ad. The second posted the politician’s phone number on a different Craigslist ad. The third was an email sent directly to the politician containing his social security number and other sensitive information. The fourth incident was a false report filed with the Child Protective Services (CPS) against the politician. The fifth incident was a false accusation of sexual abuse. The Commonwealth indicated that it was the conduct, and not the speech, which was the important issue and also that malicious intent had been proven.

3. Summarize the Johnsons’ arguments that their conduct was protected speech.

The Johnsons argued that their conduct was an expression of freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, and also claimed that the Massachusetts statute under which they were charged was overly broad and unconstitutional.

4. In your opinion should it be cyberharassment or an exercise of First Amendment right?

In my opinion, the Courts were correct in upholding the conviction because the conduct was malicious. Harassment cannot be protected...



1. Summarize the facts relevant to deciding whether Maryland’s “good-and-substantial-reason requirement” violates the Second Amendment.

Maryland’s “good and substantial reason requirement” restricts handgun ownership with a strict permit application process. A permit application, even one as seemingly arbitrary as that in the Maryland good and substantial reason requirement, does not directly violate the Second Amendment. The district court initially filed in favor of Woollard, who claimed the “good and substantial reason requirement” violated the Second Amendment. However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the district court.

2. Summarize Raymond Woollard’s arguments that the requirement violated his Second Amendment rights.

Woollard argued that the requirement violated his Second Amendment rights on the grounds that the Second Amendment not only covered the right to own a handgun in the home but also to carry it outside the home. Woollard also referred to the cases District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), and invoked the Fourteenth Amendment too.

3. Summarize the Court’s arguments upholding the requirement against Woollard’s challenge.

The Court argued against Woollard partly on the grounds of intermediate scrutiny, in which a “substantial government interest” can be used to balance or restrict private rights (“Woollard v. Gallagher Amicus Brief,” 2012). In the Woollard case, it was determined that public safety issues outweigh an individual’s right to bear arms in a public place.

4. In your opinion, is the good-and-substantial-reason requirement “reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest”? Defend your answer.

The good and substantial requirement does not necessarily violate the Second Amendment, which offers no explicit protection of an individual’s right to bear arms. Moreover, the good and substantial reason is reasonably adapted to a substantial government interest, assuming that preserving and promoting public safety can be called a substantial government interest.

Lawrence v. Texas

1. State exactly what the court decided regarding homosexual sodomy.

In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court ruled that the Texas statute prohibiting homosexual conduct was unconstitutional based on the right to privacy and equal protection clauses. Prior to the ruling, the Texas Court of Appeals had upheld the statute.

2. Summarize the majority opinion’s argument supporting its decision.

The majority in the 7-2 ruling overturned the convictions of Lawrence and Gardner, ruling that…

Sources Used in Documents:


Columbia University (n.d.). Commonwealth v. Johnson. Retrieved online:

"Kennedy v. Louisiana." Oyez, 2 Sep. 2017,

“Woollard v. Gallagher Amicus Brief,” (2012). Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Retrieved online:


Cite this Document:

"Four Cases That Involve Constitutional Law" (2017, September 02) Retrieved March 24, 2023, from

"Four Cases That Involve Constitutional Law" 02 September 2017. Web.24 March. 2023. <>

"Four Cases That Involve Constitutional Law", 02 September 2017, Accessed.24 March. 2023,

Related Documents
Gilbert Law Summaries: Constitutional Law
Words: 10293 Length: 32 Pages Topic: Business - Law Paper #: 42385435

This essay provides a brief overview of several of the key factors in conflict of laws, including the areas where choice of law is likely to be at issue. Domicile Domicile is one of the key factors in choice of law. Domicile is not the same as location. Instead, domicile is a legal fiction connecting a person to a location for a specific purpose. Domicile impacts jurisdiction and choice of law.

Constitutional Law: Real Estate Eminent
Words: 2921 Length: 9 Pages Topic: Business - Law Paper #: 2474434

" (GAO, 2006) Issues involved are stated to include "the dispersal of residents in low-income communities to other neighborhoods or cities." (GAO, 2006) it is stated that an inherent right of "sovereignty, eminent domain in a government's power to take private property for a public use while fairly compensating the property owners." (GAO, 2006) There have been actions in state legislatures toward prohibition of "certain eminent domain practices, such as preventing

Constitutional Law There Are a
Words: 2969 Length: 9 Pages Topic: Transportation Paper #: 35764779

In the case, Carty was a passenger of a vehicle operated by another individual. The vehicle was stopped for speeding, and the driver of the vehicle was asked to sign a form of consent to search the vehicle. During the search, the officer did a pat down of both Carty and the driver, at which time cocaine was found on Carty. The signed consent to search did not include

Constitutional Law- Search and Seizure
Words: 1764 Length: 5 Pages Topic: Transportation Paper #: 87533525

If Harry had been stopped at a sobriety checkpoint, the outcome of his case would be dramatically different. The Supreme Court has determined that sobriety checkpoints are legal, as long as they are conducted in a neutral manner. Stopping all approaching cars meets the neutrality requirement. Moreover, the Supreme Court has also determined that the use of drug dogs does not violate one's Fourth Amendment rights; commentators have called this

Death Penalty in the Constitutional Law
Words: 4228 Length: 15 Pages Topic: Criminal Justice Paper #: 75375160

public to scholars, the death penalty has come under severe criticism in contemporary epoch. The debate between the supporters and criticizers of capital punishment has been going on for decades. Is death penalty constitutional? What are the factors that may render it unconstitutional? Is racial discrimination one of such factors? The paper uses a set of law review articles and highlights racial discrimination in death penalty in United States, discusses

Constitutional Protections in American Criminal
Words: 1668 Length: 6 Pages Topic: Criminal Justice Paper #: 88234950

Georgia (428 U.S. 153). In that case, the Supreme Court finally ruled specifically that capital punishment was not inherently necessarily cruel or unusual, and therefore, was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment in and of itself (Schmalleger, 2008). Since Gregg, the issues surrounding the Eighth Amendment constitutionality of capital punishment relate to the specific methods of implementation in light of evidence that lethal injection, the most common method used