The United States Supreme Court was organized on February 2nd, 1790. The Constitutional origins of the Supreme Court can be found in Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution. It states, �The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Supreme Court has the power to interpret the constitution and make exceptions to laws that they deem are unconstitutional in a given case (�A Brief Overview of The Supreme Court�, 1-2).
The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down many rulings over the last fifty years. Several of those rulings have essentially given citizens the right to burn the flag, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion. These issues are all strongly debated and in danger of being overturned. There is a constitutional basis for each of these rulings, but some argue that the constitutional backing for these rulings is either too vague or simply do not apply to the issue. Nonetheless, it is up to the Supreme Court to make those decisions.
In recent times, many who opposed political ideas such as war and the objections to burning the flag have protested by burning the flag. Many Americans are outraged by this behavior and believe that the flag is a symbol of the United States and should therefore be protected by law (�The Flag Protection Act of 1989�, 2). In the case of Texas v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the burning of the flag was a right protected by the First Amendment�s right to �free speech� . They concluded that even though the speech may be considered offensive to most people, it is still a form of speech; it is considered �symbolic speech�. The Court decided this with a 6-2 vote (�Jefferson- Enlightenment: United States v. Eichman- Burning the American Flag�, 1-2).
Following the ruling by the Court, The Flag Protection Act of 1989 was passed in an attempt to overturn the ruling of Texas v. Johnson. The day the bill went into effect, hundreds of people burned flags in protest of the bill. Two men, Shawn Eichman and Mike Haggerty, were charged with violating the law. The case was taken all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where by a vote of 5-4, the Court declared the bill unconstitutional. The ruling reiterated the belief that flag burning falls into the kind of actions like �virulent and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures�, these actions are all considered offensive by most Americans, but the government has no right to infringe upon these ideas simply because they are offensive to the majority, but that does not take the right away from the minority (�Jefferson- Enlightenment: United States v. Eichman- Burning the American Flag�, 2-3).
Under the First Amendment of the Constitution, we as a people are guaranteed the right of freedom of speech. We have the right to religious freedom, freedom of the press and freedom of expression. I believe that the First Amendment under freedom of expression protects flag burning. It is a person�s right to protest and to speak his views and ideas freely. Burning the flag, however vile it may seem to the vast majority of the American population is, nevertheless, protected by the First Amendment. I would most likely never burn a flag, but I would not object to someone else doing it as a symbolic gesture of his or her political beliefs. Their expression of those beliefs is protected and that is how it should remain. Overturning the ruling in Texas v. Johnson would most likely lead to more flag burning and protest (�The Flag Protection Act of 1989�, 1-2).
Another highly debated issue amongst Americans and our courts is the exclusionary rule. The judicial branch uses the exclusionary rule as a check on the executive branch. Under this policy, any evidence that is obtained illegally, whether it is without a search warrant or in breach of the rules of a search warrant, will be inadmissible in court (Lynch, 2). This applies primarily to the fourth amendment right to be free from illegal search and seizures, but it also to the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination. It applies to the Fifth Amendment because if a person is not informed of their right to remain silent and they give a confession, that confession is considered to be attained illegally and is therefore inadmissible in court (Lynch, 4).
In the case of Weeks v. United States (1914), Weeks was suspected of illegal gambling, was taken into custody at his job, while a group of police officers searched his home without his permission or a warrant. They found various papers, books, and letter and turned them in as evidence. Weeks� attorney pointed out the peculiar circumstances of the search and he lodged an objection, which was overruled. Weeks was convicted, but appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court (Lynch, 6). A warrant is not required for every search, but after analyzing the case, the Court decided that none of the exceptions applied to the case and that the evidence was therefore obtained illegally and the trial court should not have allowed prosecutors to introduce the evidence. Weeks was acquitted of the charges. This case established the exclusionary rule, but only in federal court. Mapp v. Ohio (1961) extended the rule to the states as well (Cooke, 1-2).
The exclusionary rule has three elements. First, the police officer or person acting as a police agent must commit an illegal act. Second, there must be evidence obtained. Third, there must be a casual connection between the evidence obtained and the illegal action by which it was obtained. If it cannot be proven that the illegal action was responsible for the collection of the evidence in question, then it is admissible (Cooke, 1).
Consequently, there are three exceptions to the exclusionary rule. In these cases, even if the three elements needed to trigger the exclusionary rule apply, the evidence will still be deemed admissible. The first exception is the Independent Source Doctrine. It was created by the Supreme Court case of Segura and Colon v. U.S. In this situation, the evidence is seized in two different physical ways. One of the ways is illegal, and the second is legal. The second exception is the Inevitable Discovery Doctrine. The case of Nix v. Williams in 1984 established this doctrine. The exception states that the evidence is seized in two different ways, but only one being physical. The evidence is seized illegally by physical means, but there is also a hypothetical seizure of the evidence that would not have been illegal. Basically meaning that the evidence would have been seized eventually by legal means. The last exception to the exclusionary rule is that of Good Faith. The U.S. v. Leon and Massachusetts v. Sheppard Supreme Court cases added this exception, both in 1984. It states that if the officer receives a warrant and acts upon it to seize evidence and later it is discovered that the warrant was given by mistake, the evidence is still allowed since the point of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. The Good Faith exception does have limitations. If the officer misled the magistrate to receive the warrant or if the magistrate is not neutral in his decision, then the evidence is inadmissible (Cooke, 1-2).
The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct. This is one of the few ways that the judicial branch can control the executive branch. This rule forces police and prosecutors to develop procedures and training that make it hard to violate this rule. Many argue that the rule is not effective in deterring police misconduct because the majority of police work is not intended to result in prosecution (Koons, 1-2). They also claim it is a waste of time of judicial resources, an encouragement of perjury on the part of the police, as well as a seemingly unlimited power for police to grant immunity to any criminal, by deliberately engaging in an illegal search, thus leading to corruption (Koons, 2).
Most opposition to the exclusionary rule comes from conservative republicans. When republicans gained control of Congress in 1995, the conservative legislators set out to abolish the exclusionary rule. Senator Orrin Hatch, chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee, crafted the republican crime bill, which would eliminate the exclusionary rule in federal criminal prosecutions. They insist that there are other, more effective ways to deter police misconduct (Lynch, 5).
In light of all the police misconduct that we see in our society today, I believe that the exclusionary rule is necessary. Under the Fourth Amendment and the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, we are entitled to be free from unreasonable and illegal searches and seizures. If the Supreme Court ruled to overturn the exclusionary rule then we would all be at the mercy of the police. There are several recorded incidents where people were victims of police misconduct (Koons, 2). Police officers skipped the warrant seeking process and the result was the loss of innocent human lives. Police officers should have to follow the procedure to receive a warrant before they are allowed to search anyone or any given place. It is also my belief that there should be harsher punishment and consequences for officers who deliberately skip the warrant process. It may seem like a way for criminals to get away with crimes, but in reality it is a rule that enforces our constitutional right (Cooke, 3).
Abortion laws began to appear in the 1820s, which did not allow abortions after the fourth month of pregnancy. Through the efforts of physicians, The American Medical Association, and legislators, most abortions were outlawed by 1900. Many feminists, such as Susan B. Anthony, wrote against abortion. They opposed abortion because in their time the procedure was still unsafe. In 1965, all fifty states banned abortion, with some exceptions that varied by state which included: to save the life of the mother, in cases of rape or incest, or if the fetus was deformed (�A Brief History of the Abortion Controversy in the United States�, 1).
The breakthrough for abortion laws came in 1973 with the Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, which is up to date one of the most well known cases in the history of the United States Supreme Court. This case determined that most state�s abortion laws were unconstitutional (�A Brief History of the Abortion Controversy in the United States�, 2). The Supreme Court recognized that a woman�s right to decide whether or not to continue her pregnancy was protected under the constitutional provisions of individual anatomy and privacy. Roe placed women�s reproductive choice alongside other fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech and freedom or religion, by giving it the highest degree of constitutional protection, �strict scrutiny� to choice. The decision ruled out any legislative involvement in the first and put limits on the restrictions that could be passed on abortions in the later stage of pregnancy (�Roe v. Wade- Then and Now�, 2-3).
Shortly after the Roe decision, several attempts were made by legislature to overturn the decision of Roe. No other right has been attacked with so much opposition or so much success as the right to have an abortion. The first major success came against teenagers in 1979. The Court endorsed state laws that required parental consent for a minor to have an abortion. The way they got around the right to privacy was a complicated system where minors would request a hearing before a state judge on whether they were �mature� or an abortion was in their best interest. This was established by the case of Belloti v. Baird (�Roe v. Wade- Then and Now�, 3).
The attacks on the right to abortion were far from being over. The next attack was on low-income women. The Hyde Amendment, which prohibited Medicaid from covering most abortions, was reaffirmed and upheld in the 1980 case of Harris v. McRae. The court abandoned its neutrality as defined by Roe and stated that for poor women, they had the authority to promote childbearing over abortion as long as they did it without criminal laws and only used funding schemes, i.e. Medicaid and other government programs that paid for abortions. In the case of City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, which took place in 1983, Justice O�Connor called for a change in the decision of Roe. She proposed that the constitutional protection of �strict scrutiny� be lessened to �undue burden�. After the arrival of Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia and the elevation of William Rehnquist to chief justice, there were no longer five votes to keep reproductive choice a fundamental right (�Roe v. Wade- Then and Now�, 4).
In the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the strict judicial scrutiny established by Roe was changed to undue burden, which is vague and confusing. This decision opened the door to over 300 state and federal criminal restrictions, which are intended to steer women away from abortion. All of those restrictions would not have been unconstitutional under the original Roe decision (�Roe v. Wade Upheld by Razor Thin Margin of 5-4�, 2). Only two of the four pillars of Roe remain today. The original four pillars included, (1) The decision to have an abortion was accorded the highest level of constitutional protection like any other fundamental constitutional right; (2) the government had to stay neutral; legislatures could not enact laws that pushed women to make one decision or another; (3) in the period before the fetus is viable, the government may restrict abortion only to protect a woman's health; (4) after viability, the government may prohibit abortion, but laws must make exceptions that permit abortion when necessary to protect a woman's health or
life. Now the government is free to pass laws that restrict abortions based on �morality,� something many people believe stands for religious anti-abortion laws (�Roe v. Wade- Then and Now�, 3).
The most recent case has been the case was Stenberg v. Cahart, which was about partial-birth abortion in Nebraska. The question was whether or not a statute outlawing partial-birth abortions illegally limits a woman�s right to have an abortion. It was concluded that the statute was unconstitutional because it placed undue burden on the mother. It violated her right to protect her privacy and her life (�Supreme Court Strikes Down Controversial Nebraska Abortion Law�, 1). My personal stance on this issue is that abortion is protected under the Constitution; a woman does have a right to choose whether or not she will carry her child to term. Again, as in my opinion of burning the flag, I do not agree with anyone having an abortion, but neither would I stand in their way. I personally believe that the procedures involve a lot of risk and often give women an easy way out from an unwanted pregnancy. I believe it encourages teenage promiscuity and that it can be both physically and emotionally detrimental to a woman, no matter her age or maturity. I do not believe, however, that the government has any right to overturn the decisions, which have made abortions legal (�Roe v. Wade- Then and Now�, 1-4). I also believe that the decision made to take away the protection of strict scrutiny and replace it with undue burden was unjustified and the conservative�s (republican) attempt to restrict a woman�s right to
choose (�Roe v. Wade- Then and Now�, 3).
Accordingly, the decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has made over the past 50 years regarding the right to burn the flag, which is protected by our First Amendment right of free speech, the exclusionary rule, which is protected by our Fourth Amendment right to be free from illegal searches and seizures, and perhaps most importantly a woman�s right to choose an abortion which is protected by constitutional provisions of individual anatomy and privacy, have all encompassed our rights as American citizens. These rights are not something that the Supreme Court simply decided to give us; they are rights that are guaranteed to us by the Constitution. (�A Brief Overview of the United States Supreme Court�, 2). Many argue that these things are not directly stated in the Constitution, but people have to understand that the men who wrote the Constitution wrote it in a time when things were very different. The vagueness of the Constitution and the stating of only basic ideas was done intentionally, so that as times changed the rights of the people would not fade away with or become moot due to changes in lifestyle and society. Overturning these rulings has become an obvious possibility, but if these rulings were to be overturned they would take with them all of what the United States stands for, freedom.
