Court Cases Description: Human Rights

Charles Lowe Case

If this sample essay on"Court Cases Description: Human Rights" doesn’t help,
our writers will!

Trust an expert

In this case, the United States of America, Lowe was charged by the indictment with forgery of a government check.

Japanese-American Imprisonment (Internment) Cases

During the Second World War, there was a lot of racial discrimination among people of other races in America. One of the most affected people was the Japanese. They underwent forceful evacuation from their residents and were subject to other maltreatments. In the case of Hirabayashi, U.S.Yasui, Chief Justice Stone gave his reasons for justifying this kind of discrimination upon the Japanese.

According to Stone, racial discrimination at the time of war is justified because, during the time of war, where the residents have an ethnic affiliation with the enemy invading them, this may pose a lot of danger compared to the individuals with an origin from a different ancestry. Therefore, to him, he argued that evacuating the Japanese Americans was called for because, in the end, the Japaneses loyalty was not in the United States, but rather, with their ancestral land, Japan, hence, a threat to the safety of the Americans.

However, his argument was rejected by Justice Murphy uses in Korematsu. In his dissent, he termed racism as evil and should never be used despite their democratic way of life. He also called it unconstitutionally, therefore, violating the law. He went further to describe that each in the United States had blood or a tint of culture in them from a foreign land.

Thus, they had no right to treat the Japanese in the manner in which they were treating them. Hence, at all times, the Japanese must be able to receive the same treatment as the Americans. Consequently, they had anentitlement to all the freedoms and rights that the Constitution of the United States guarantees its citizens. With this, he clearly opposed what Stone said as he was trying to justify the acts of the government to evacuate the Japanese-Americans. Without a doubt, racism is wrong and must not be used as a democratic tool.

Dennis Case

Freedom of speech is the ability of an individual to speak freely and air his or her views openly without restrictions. In Dennis v. the United States, Chief Justices Douglas and Frankfurter go ahead to describe the importance of freedom of speech to the political system of the United States. According to Frankfurter, the conviction of the defendants under 3 of the Smith Act was unlawful. According to Dennis, who was, the Smith Act violated a communist party leader, the fundamental rights provided by the Bill of Rights and first Amendment. The Act revoked the right to print, meet, and speak freely. In the case, the defendants did not make their actions clear, thus posing no danger to the state, in their bid to overthrow the government. They were then tried under the Smith Act.

According to Justice Felix Frankfurter, the first Amendment does not protect all types of speech. Thus, their position in the value scale varies. In protecting free speech, he argues, the circumstances of that occasion must be considered. Therefore, the position preferred by the first Amendment is questionable. According to him, even though the Smith Act was applied in the Dennis case, it does not mean that it can be constitutionally applied in other cases. Again, although the clear and present danger rule was used, it must not substitute the weighing of values.

Douglas also admitted that not all speeches were protected. He, therefore, had his doubts in the ruling made by the court in this case. He states that the presented evidence is insufficient because it fails to give the acts of the defendants. Speech in itself cannot be said to cause any injury. He also adds that the act of advocacy n itself is not injurious without incitement. From the case, the issue of communism and its dangers to the US came out. The two chief justices, Douglas, and Frankfurter, however, had their different opinions.

To Frankfurter, there were many dangers that came with communism advocacy. According to him, communism came with violent revolution, for instance, the takeover of Eastern Europe and China. He also stated that Communism also took advantage of the democratic structures that existed. Frankfurter also illustrated that the Soviet Union used communist party members as their tools.

However, Justice Douglas has a completely different view of communism. According to him, communism is not a bogeyman. It is a political function necessary for the growth of every country. However, the good effects of communism as a political party have been crippled by free speech. He explains that advocacy, which is practiced much in communism is not harmful since it is used in enlightening people. Hence, communism does not pose any danger to the United States.

Roe Wade Case

In this case, the issue of autonomy and privacy enjoyed by all individuals was the theme of discussion. The main discussion, however, was to invalidate the laws in Texas that prohibited abortion except when it is necessary for saving the life of the mother. In this case, it was discussed that the right to autonomy and privacy were the governing factors when it came to a womans decision to terminate thepregnancy. The right is clearly elaborated in the constitution. Justice Blackmun, writing on behalf of themajority, illustrated that the right of personal privacy is fundamental. Moreover, with that, a woman had all the rights to terminate her pregnancy at her pleasure.

In the case, several discussions erupted. First, the argument that the fetus is the court rejected a person based on amendment fourteen for the constitution's protection of life. However, the court was also clear that the decision made by a woman to terminate her pregnancy were not purely absolute. The interests of the mother were subject to balance against those of the state in maternal health and potential life.

Putting in mind the competing interests, the highest degree of protection by the Constitution were afforded by the court. Thus, the laws that limited abortion were examined, leading to the establishment of the trimester framework that was used in analyzing the abortion restrictions. Thus, using the trimesters and the law, various issues were looked into at the time of the pregnancy from the first to the third trimester. According to the laws, the decision to abort is left with the physician attending to the pregnant mother. The state may make its regulations in the second trimester as it tries to take into consideration the health of the mother. In the final trimester, the interest of the state in potential life becomes the reference point. Thus, all the bans on abortion were invalidated all over the country. The only one that remained was that which validated abortions meant for the protection of the mothers life.