The Supreme Court is that of a Chief Justice of the United States and a set number of Associate Judges, fixed by congress and appointed by the President. The Supreme Court has specific guidelines on how many cases they are to hear in a set time but, they have discretion on which cases they choose to hear out in court. Many cases they hear deal with questions, or conflicts, with the interpretation of the constitution, such as the cases: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Beauharnais v. Illinois, and R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul.
In the court case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court must look at the appeal of a New Hampshire State Supreme Court ruling that Chaplinsky’s use of profane language on openly public streets in a means that may …show more content…
Illinois, the Supreme Court must look at the appeal of the Illinois State Supreme Court ruling that Beauharnais’ use of libel in a lithograph on a leaflet setting forth a petition to furthermore, get rid of, or stop, the migration of the black population coming into Chicago, Illinois. The municipal court held him at fault of violation of Illinois Criminal Code and issued him a ticket. Beauharnais challenged their ruling appealing to the Illinois State Supreme Court hoping they may share his belief in that the statute was unconstitutional and violates the 1st and 14th Constitutional Amendments of the liberty of Speech and Press and of Due Process. Instead, the Illinois State Supreme Court rightfully shut down these notions of them being unconstitutional due to the relevance of the libel used in the petition in order to attempt to ban the Negros from moving into Chicago. Beauharnais could not accept this and finally appealed to the United States Supreme Court. They accepted the case because they are more inclined to take cases that question a policy or law’s constitutional sturdiness, and have to do with race and ethnicity. The Supreme Court had Majority rule against Beauharnais, stating that like in many other cases, “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting ' words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” I feel that the supreme Court was justified in the continuation of the prosecution of Beauharnais. His efforts to rid Chicago of any further “invasion” by the “negros” that impeded of the “white’s way of live and living” was unjust and went against the constitutions statement of “all men are created equal” and have the right to “Life,
In the court case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the Supreme Court must look at the appeal of a New Hampshire State Supreme Court ruling that Chaplinsky’s use of profane language on openly public streets in a means that may …show more content…
Illinois, the Supreme Court must look at the appeal of the Illinois State Supreme Court ruling that Beauharnais’ use of libel in a lithograph on a leaflet setting forth a petition to furthermore, get rid of, or stop, the migration of the black population coming into Chicago, Illinois. The municipal court held him at fault of violation of Illinois Criminal Code and issued him a ticket. Beauharnais challenged their ruling appealing to the Illinois State Supreme Court hoping they may share his belief in that the statute was unconstitutional and violates the 1st and 14th Constitutional Amendments of the liberty of Speech and Press and of Due Process. Instead, the Illinois State Supreme Court rightfully shut down these notions of them being unconstitutional due to the relevance of the libel used in the petition in order to attempt to ban the Negros from moving into Chicago. Beauharnais could not accept this and finally appealed to the United States Supreme Court. They accepted the case because they are more inclined to take cases that question a policy or law’s constitutional sturdiness, and have to do with race and ethnicity. The Supreme Court had Majority rule against Beauharnais, stating that like in many other cases, “There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting ' words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” I feel that the supreme Court was justified in the continuation of the prosecution of Beauharnais. His efforts to rid Chicago of any further “invasion” by the “negros” that impeded of the “white’s way of live and living” was unjust and went against the constitutions statement of “all men are created equal” and have the right to “Life,