Download Third Constitutional Era (1938-?) States against espionage was

Third Constitutional Era (1938-?)
States against espionage was more important than the rights of Japanese immigrants and
citizens in the United States.
44.4.3 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952)
During the Korean War, a labor dispute arose between the Steelworkers (an association of
workers, called a labor union) and the various steel mills who employed them. The steel
mills claimed that the workers in question were being paid too much, and, after difcult
negotiations, decided to lockout these workers, so that they could avoid paying them. The
workers were outraged that they were being locked out, due to the enormous unfulfilled
needs of soldiers on the battlefield for tanks and weapons that couldn't be produced and
were being ignored due to the position of the mill owners, and perhaps also due to the fact
that they weren't able to work or get paid.
President Harry Truman 5 decided to intervene, claiming that due to the fact that a war
was going on, he, as "Commander in Chief", could temporarily seize and run the steel mills
under the Federal Government so as to continue production during the war. This outraged
both the steel mills and the workers; both sides didn't believe the government could do such
a thing, as no law had been passed to allow those sorts of actions to take place; indeed, most
people believed that unilateral actions like Truman's, in this case, were exactly the type of
thing the Constitution was there to prevent.
The owners of the steel mills sued the government for seizing the steel mills. Within several
weeks, due to the emergency nature of the situation, the case came before the Supreme
Court.
The Court ruled against the Government, finding that there were no provisions in the law or
the Constitution that allowed the government to seize private industry (or to force workers
to work) during a labor dispute. Though the decision was mixed--almost every Justice
wrote an opinion--it was definitively against the Government. Justice Harlan? wrote the
most famous opinion in this case--delineating three spheres of Presidential power--that is
considered to be the single most authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on
the scope of Presidential powers since the immediate aftermath of the Civil War; Harlan's?
opinion still is considered authoritative to this day.
This case, although it might seem minor to the reader, has great meta-Constitutional
importance--Presidential powers have greatly expanded since the Framing of the Constitution-and their exact scope is extremely controversial, especially in the past 30-40 years.
The mills were returned to their owners, who (very quickly) reached agreement with the
workers, and the dispute was resolved.
44.4.4 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
VERY IMPORTANT Supreme Court case which decided that racial segregation
public schools was contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution; one factor that
5
6
6
in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry%20Truman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial%20segregation
405
Appendix Gamma: Supreme Court Decisions
set in motion the civil rights 7 movement amongst African-Americans. Brown v. Board of
Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] was a landmark decision of the United States
Supreme Court, which overturned earlier rulings going back to Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896,
by declaring that state laws that established separate public schools for black and white
students denied black children equal educational opportunities. Handed down on May 17,
1954, the Warren Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities
are inherently unequal." As a result, de jure racial segregation was ruled a violation of the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
This victory paved the way for integration and the civil rights movement.[2] Contents [hide]
44.4.5 Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)
The Exclusionary Rule protects defendants in criminal cases from having unlawfully obtained
evidence used against them in court, such as stolen items found during a search of a residence
by police without a warrant. For many years, the Exclusionary Rule only was applied at the
federal level. Federal criminal prosecutions are an extremely tiny minority of all criminal
prosecutions in the United States; most prosecutions occur at the state level, including nearly
all of those for extraordinarily serious crimes, such as murder and rape. (Federal crimes
include ofenses against federal property and agents; certain crimes taking place in multiple
states, such as a spree of bank robberies; interstate conspiracies, such as a drug-smuggling
ring; crimes taking place under color of law, such as police brutality or judicial corruption;
and also include acts of terrorism, military crimes, espionage, and treason. The states are
responsible for the prosecution of all other criminal acts, from drunken disorderliness all the
way to premeditated murder.)
In Mapp, the Supreme Court found that the Exclusionary Rule applied to the states, and
that evidence unlawfully obtained could not be used for state prosecutions, in addition to
federal ones. The grounds for this were found in the Fourteenth Amendment, which required
that states not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law;
liberty was held to include those rights protected by the Bill of Rights, which had previously
only applied to acts of the Federal Government.
Mapp forced wholesale changes in police procedure throughout the United States, as police
were now required to obtain warrants to gather evidence that could be used in court.
(Previously, police were supposed to obtain warrants to search homes, but as the evidence
gained by warrantless (i.e. unlawful) searches was admitted regardless of whether it was
obtained by warrant or not, this rule was widely ignored.) In addition, Mapp signaled an
increased level of scrutiny by the Supreme Court over police practices, which has continued
to the present day.
44.4.6 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)
Case that decided that accused persons had right to a lawyer even if they could not aford
one.
7
406
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/civil%20rights%20movement