The Fourteenth Amendment and Whitney v. California analysis

U.S. Constitution: Discussion Questions

A) The Fourteenth Amendment: the Case of Whitney V. California

274 U.S. 357

Whitney V. California (No. 3)

Argued: October 6, 1925

Decided: May 16, 1927

453 Affirmed

Location: Socialist Convention at Loring Hall

Factual Analysis: Anita Charlotte Whitney, who subscribed to the CLPC (Communist Labor Party of California), found herself was arraigned for breaching the state's 'Criminal Syndicalism Act', which forbade any actions aiding or advocating crime commission, including "terrorism as a means of accomplishing a change in industrial ownership or control, or effecting any political change" (LII, n.d.).

was the 'Criminal Syndicalism Act' repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment? By penalizing those who advocate unlawful and violent methods of altering political and industrial situations and not penalizing individuals who advocate the same methods with the aim of maintaining such conditions, the statute, in the view of the defendant, contravened the 'Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment' (LII, n.d.).

Majority Opinion: No. The Criminal Syndicalism Act does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the distinction cannot be regarded arbitrary; rather it is "within the discretionary power of the state to direct its legislation against what it deems an evil, without covering the whole field of possible abuses" (LII, n.d.). Moreover, the statute is not class-legislation; it treats equally all those who fall within its terms and do the prohibited things, and does not therefore breach the 'Equal Protection Clause'(LII, n.d.).

B) Summary of the 'Bill of Rights'

First Amendment: Congress shall not make, and pass any legislation that i) prohibits people from exercising their religions freely; ii) infringes on the 'freedom of the press' or the 'freedom of speech'; or iii) denies the American people 'the right to assemble' and peacefully urge the relevant authority (in this case, the government) to address a pressing need (Wayne, 2010).

Second Amendment: members of a controlled militia, whose sole aim is to protect the community and the people from external harm during warfare shall freely keep and bear arms (Wayne, 2010).

Third Amendment: it is illegal for a soldier to encamp in a house or premise without the owner's consent, be it in time of war, or peace (Wayne, 2010).

Fourth Amendment: Law enforcers shall not infringe on people's privacy by conducting unreasonable seizures and searches in their houses or persons. A warranty shall be obtained if any such seizure is to be conducted, and it should specifically describe the place to be searched as well as the items to be seized (Wayne, 2010).

Fifth Amendment: Persons facing charges on infamous crime shall only answer for the same before a grand jury, except in cases that involve public safety or those arising in militia and naval forces during warfare (Wayne, 2010). A person shall neither be charged twice for the same offence, nor be forced to give evidence that incriminates himself in his own criminal case. Additionally, an accused person's property shall not be taken and put to public use, unless they have been compensated for the same (Wayne, 2010).

Sixth Amendment: accused persons have the 'right to a speedy and public trial' by a neutral jury of the relevant jurisdiction. They further have 'the right to be informed of the nature of the accusation', to present their own witnesses during trial, and to be represented by an attorney in court (Wayne, 2010).

Seventh Amendment: Common law suits that involve a value exceeding $20 shall be conducted by a jury, and the facts shall not be reexamined in any other court in the U.S., unless such a court abides by the rules of Common law (Wayne, 2010).

Eighth Amendment: courts shall not impose excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishments on offenders (Wayne, 2010).

Ninth Amendment: rights enumerated in the Constitution shall not be used to disparage or deny other rights enjoyed by the people (Wayne, 2010).

Tenth Amendment: powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the U.S. Nor prohibits to the states will be reserved by the state, and the people (Wayne, 2010).

D) Theories of Constitutional Interpretation

Theories of constitutional interpretation fall into several categories; pragmatism, constructionism, contextualism, intentionalism, textualism, and originalism, among others (Wayne, 2010). I subscribe to a contextualism approach, because the context within which an event occurred says a lot about the intention of the doer. In law enforcement, context plays a fundamental role in decision-making; for instance, when we say that someone acted in self-defense, we have taken into consideration the situation the subject was