Basic Information

The architect Cass Gilbert had grand ambitions for his design of a new home for the Supreme Court--what he called "the greatest tribunal in the world, one of the three great elements of our national government." Gilbert knew that the approach to the Court, as much as the structure itself, would define the experience of the building, but the site presented a challenge. Other exalted Washington edifices--the Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial--inspired awe with their processional approaches. But in 1928 Congress had designated for the Court a cramped and asymmetrical plot of land, wedged tightly between the Capitol and the Library of Congress. How could Gilbert convey to visitors the magnitude and importance of the judicial process taking place within the Court's walls?
The answer, he decided, was steps. Gilbert pushed back the wings of the building, so that the public face of the building would be a portico with a massive imposing stairway. Visitors would not have to walk a long distance to enter, but few would forget the experience of mounting those forty-four steps to the double row of eight massive columns supporting the roof. The walk up the stairs would be the central symbolic experience of the Supreme Court, a physical manifestation of the American march to justice. The stairs separated the Court from the everyday world--and especially from the earthly concerns of the politicians in the Capitol-- and announced that the justices would operate, literally, on a higher plane. (Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court. New York: Anchor Books, 2008.)

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Tinker vs. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. 1969

This case is very important to teenagers because it deals with freedom of expression. The arm bands worn by the students exemplify the protest against the Vietnam War. The issue presented by the school was that it caused a disruption. This case deals with the first amendment which grants freedom of expression. As long as the action does not pose a direct threat to people it is okay to do. It is obvious that armbands can not do any harm. They were simply a very good way to show opposistion of the Vietnam War. I find that many people struggle to express themselves everyday because they live in fear that they will be reprimanded for the action they take, which is why after you review this case you can see how protected you really are by the constitution.

Facts of the Case:
John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

Question:
Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Conclusion:
The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)