The Case Of Brandeis's Katz V. Untied States?

1221 Words 5 Pages
The Supreme Court, as Justice Madison puts it, is the Supreme interpreter of the law, and all laws that are not constitutional must be strike down. Brandeis also thinks this way. He thinks the interpreter of the law has supervisory powers. They must be impartial and not allow a citizen or government official to break the law. If citizens break the law, then the appropriate punishment applies according to the statutes; however, if the government breaks the law, then sanctions applies to uphold the integrity of the law. In addition to his stance on the law, he feels the government is not to overstep their boundaries by harming the civil liberties of Americans. Brandeis believes in the Bill of Rights and protecting the original intent of that …show more content…
In Katz v. Untied States , A gambler was wiretapped by the government at a telephone booth. The case made it to the Supreme Court on the same issue as Olmstead. The dissenting opinion of Olmstead was the basis of the argument used in the ruling of Katz. However, the holding overturned the Olmstead ruling and said that people have an expectation of privacy that society finds reasonable. This ruling prevents government officials from the continuance of unlawfully obtaining evidence and reinforces the Fourth Amendment. It took a liberal court to strike down what was bad law and apply the extension of the Fourth Amendment protection not to property, but to …show more content…
In this case, the defendant was charged with a felony for organizing and assisting the Communist Labor Party in California. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court on the question of whether the court violated the defendant freedom of speech in connection with the Fourteenth Amendment. Brandeis concedes that the defendant broke the law; however, he did not appreciate the way the court attack the defendant freedom of speech and assembly. The fight for political change, and to be free, is an inherent birthright of Americans passed down by the Founders of the Constitution. Dialogue is necessary to counteract the ills of society. Freedoms of speech and protections are essential because discussions are what shape democracy. Brandeis thinks the government should not interfere with the freedom of speech unless it is under dire circumstances. A person freedom of expression will not constitute a crime unless there is clear and present danger and immediate serious violence was to be expected or advocated from the speech. The creation of this test sets parameters for when the government can intervene with a person’s freedom of speech. He made sure to apply this to the ruling of the case to prevent government overreach, and allow defendants opportunities to challenge the court when

Related Documents