Four Cases That Involve Constitutional Law

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 as an expression of free speech; otherwise instances of actual violence could be argued as expressions of free speech.
Woollard v. Gallagher
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 the Texas statute violated the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion also overruled the prior decision in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), a similar case in Georgia in which an anti-homosexual law was upheld.
3. Summarize Justice O’Connor’s arguments in her concurring opinion.
Justice O’Connor added to the majority opinion that the Texas law, as with the Bowers case, violated the Equal Protection clause. However, O’Connor’s concurring opinion was not subsumed by the majority.
4. Summarize Justice Scalia’s arguments in his dissent.
In his dissent, Justice Scalia argued first that homosexuality is not a “right.” Then, Scalia uses slippery slope tactics to claim that overturning laws like the one in the Lawrence v. Texas case might lead to undermining public morality, which he believes the courts are obliged to define and mandate. Scalia also mentions that the ruling might open the door for same-sex marriage.
5. Summarize Justice Thomas’s arguments in his dissent.
In his dissent, Justice Thomas actually claims that the Texas statute is “silly,” but claims that there was no Constitutional problem with the law itself.
6. Whose opinion do you support? Defend your answer.
I support both the majority and concurring opinions, as there are both Equal Protection and Due Process issues involved in the case. Due Process refers to substantive rights to personal liberty, while equal protection extends legal protection equally to all persons.

Kennedy v. Louisiana

1. According to the Court, why is death a disproportionate penalty for child rape? Do you agree? Explain your reasons.
“Louisiana law allows the district attorney to seek the death penalty for defendants found guilty of raping children under the age of twelve,” (Kennedy v. Louisiana,” 2017). In this case, the death penalty was sought, but the Louisiana high courts referred to Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, to show national consensus and also to help evaluate proportionality. However, only five other states had similar laws allowing the use of the death penalty in child rape cases. Justice Kennedy therefore ruled that five states do not constitute a national consensus, and that the death penalty was disproportionate and cruel. I do agree that the death penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, if the death penalty remains legal for cases of first degree murder, then it seems equally as appropriate to invoke capital punishment in cases of extreme cruelty like child rape.

2. Who should make the decision as to what is the appropriate penalty for crimes? Courts? Legislatures? Juries? Defend your answer.
Appropriate penalties for crime are difficult to determine. Research in criminology should help determine which penalties are most effective at reducing rates of recidivism and/or deterring crimes. Therefore, most penalties should ultimately be evidence-based. There should also be a system of checks and balances for penalties, in which legislatures and courts engage in discursive processes to elucidate appropriate and effective penalties. Creative sentencing and alternative corrections are in many cases more effective than punitive measures like the death penalty or life imprisonment.

3. In deciding whether the death penalty for child rape is cruel and unusual, is it relevant that Louisiana is the only state that punishes child rape with death?
It is relevant in the sense that Constitutional law is by definition a federal issue. Any Constitutional value needs to be universally applied in order to maintain the integrity of American law. However, individual states often set a precedent for dismantling outmoded laws, leading to substantive changes to social norms. When only one state passes a law that differs significantly from that of federal law, that state’s law needs to be evaluated on its merits. Given that many other states have the death penalty in place for certain types of murder, it does not necessarily make sense that Louisiana would not include child rape as warranting a death penalty sentence.

4. According to the Court, some crimes are worse than death. Do you agree? Is child rape one of them? Why or why not?
Child rape can be worse than death because it can lead to long-term systematic trauma. A person who is murdered is simply dead; they no longer feel pain or suffering. A child who is raped might have to live with emotional, social, and psychological consequences for the rest of her life.


References

Columbia University (n.d.). Commonwealth v. Johnson. Retrieved online: https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/commonwealth-v-johnson/
"Kennedy v. Louisiana." Oyez, 2 Sep. 2017, www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-343.
“Woollard v. Gallagher Amicus Brief,” (2012). Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Retrieved online: http://smartgunlaws.org/woollard-v-gallagher-amicus-brief/