Introduction
The constitution of any given country is usually the supreme law of the land. This means that it is the absolute law to be followed by every citizen of that country regardless of status or any form of affiliation. The interpretation of this meaning is that in case any other legislation goes against or violates any contents of this constitution, then such a legislation shall to the extent of the violation of the constitution be held invalid for the purpose of upholding the supremacy of the constitution.
In addition, every citizen of America has various rights which are clearly articulated in the constitution and whose exercise cannot be limited unless the prevailing circumstances so dictates. The First Amendment is a section that is to be found within America’s constitution. This section comprises of freedoms accorded to all citizens of this country some of which are the freedom to express oneself freely, freedom to worship freely, associate freely, freedom of the press to publish freely among other rights. The focus of this discussion is the rights contained in this section and some of the cases that have come up citing violation of the section.
Background of the First Amendment
Prior to the enactment of this Act there was a lot of interference by the government regarding civil rights of people especially those relating to expression and speech, peaceful association and assemblance, the press among others. As a way of bringing about a level platform where citizens could feel free to express themselves, the First Amendment was ratified in the year 1791.
Religion
The provisions of the First Amendment make it clear that municipal, state or federal government cannot in any way make prohibitions regarding establishing a religion and declaring it official for every citizen to follow or showing preference or affiliation to one religion over others. The interpretation of this provision has been controversial at various points with some people arguing that it means that God should be excluded from major institutions in the country. However, the actual meaning of these provisions is that the state and the church must exist independently without the former appearing to interfere or influence the latter. This therefore does not mean that the state is not allowed to make acknowledgement of God and His existence but rather prohibits the state from coming up with a religion and forcing everyone to become a follower.
Freedom of Speech
This is yet another area that has created controversy in its interpretation as some people have argued that this section protects only words which are spoken. However, an in-depth analysis reveals that speech includes any words that have been used to express one’s opinion whether written or spoken. It is also important to note that the violation of freedom of speech must emanate from laws made by the congress. Expressions made by artists in the course of their work have also been offered protection under this section. During the Vietnam war, The court held in Tinker v. Des Moines School District that armbands that had been worn as a symbol of speech were also protected under this amendment.
Freedom of the press
The First Amendment also prohibits the curtailment of the freedom of press meaning that the press which is any vehicle of opinion and information according to Lovell v. City of Griffin, has the freedom to inform the public of what is happening. This is yet another area that has drawn a fair share of controversy especially regarding the interpretation. However, the courts have articulated that the state is at liberty to levy taxes on various publications depending on how they deem fit.
The First Amendment also prohibits the regulation of content published by the press as this is seen as gagging of the media (Kubasek et al. 11). In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, the court held that a law that had been passed by the state forcing a certain publication to publish certain content was null and void as the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of the press to publish any content which they may deem fit.
Freedom of Assembly and Right to Petition the state
The First Amendment makes it a right for the public to draw a petition to the government asking the latter to address some issues that are aggrieving the public (Vile 10). Such petitions can be directed to any representative arm of the ruling authority which in this case is the government. It is also under this section that the public has a right to make a peaceful assembly when seeking to have the government address an issue that is pressing.
Freedom of Association
People have the right to come together and form an association to carry out or enhance any activities provided such activity or activities will fall well within the parameters of the law.
Ysursa, Idaho Secretary of state and others V. Pocatello Education Association and others
In this case, the complainants were various labor organizations who were suing some officials of Idaho State through the secretary of the state. These organizations were claiming that the Voluntary Contributions Act enacted by the State of Idaho went against the provisions of the First Amendment which guarantees the freedom of speech. They complainants argued that this Act went against the First Amendment by making restrictions regarding the participation of the labor organizations in activities that were categorized as being political in nature.
According to the state officials, most of the provisions of the Voluntary Contributions Act of Idaho were unconstitutional but that the prohibition of deduction of payroll for purposes of activities that were deemed political was valid (Murray 28).The District Court ruled that these provisions were constitutional when applied to the government of the state but would be unconstitutional when applied to employees of the government as well as private employees. Unsatisfied with the court’s decision, the officials of the state of Idaho appealed this decision arguing that the provisions of this Act ought to have been applied similarly for all groups.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the trial court arguing the provisions regarding deductions could not be made applicable to employees of the private sector as well as those employed by the government since the state did not have a justification that was compelling enough to do so.
From the court’s decision, it was thus argued that the provisions of Idaho’s Voluntary Contributions Act regarding making payroll deductions towards activities that were deemed political did not in any way violate the freedom of speech as provided by the First Amendment especially when the application is made to employees of local government.
The reasoning of the court in this case was that the Voluntary Contributions Act of Idaho did not in any way prohibit speech that is political in nature but rather make a declination of promoting speech by limiting employees of public institutions from making direct contributions to activities that were deemed partisan from a paycheck that had been issued to them by the government (Hainam 78). Making use of a review known as rational basis, the court made recognition of the fact that it was justifiable for the state to avoid impropriety by making illegal any kind of funding towards activities political activities that were partisan with money obtained directly from the government.
Justice Breyer who wrote a separate opinion in which he concurred in part and dissented in part argued that it would have been more reasonable for the court of appeal to remand the case and that rational basis kind of approach was not appropriate for this case. Instead, he argued that inquiry that would initiate immediate scrutiny would have been best where the Voluntary Contributions Act of Idaho ought to have been examined based on whether it brought about an imposition of burden on speech which burden was not proportionate to other areas of interests that the government hoped to achieve.
Summary of the Case
According to the ruling of the court, the bottom line as far as the issue raised in this case is concerned is that the law regarding contributions by employees from their paycheck would only be unconstitutional if it was applied to the local government. The court therefore stated that that the state was at liberty to prevent the employees of the government from engaging in such a practice but could not extend the same restrictions to matters of labor at the local level. The bottom line in this case is that the state is under no obligation whatsoever to help unions, labor, or any other union collect funds for their own activities.
Importance of this case
This case is important to everyone because the issues raised in this case are issues that one is likely to encounter and especially if one happens to work for the local government or the state. Now that the state of Idaho officials lost in this case, it only means that it will become extremely hard for the government of Idaho to offer protection to the constitutional rights of workers who decline participation in matters of the union that an employee may not want to.
In addition, any employee who on his own volition participates in projects of the union, then he or she will be under an obligation to make contributions to such a project with or without the availability of funds from the government.
Conclusion
The First Amendment was an amendment that was made to ensure that Americans enjoyed exclusive rights on various areas. The difference in interpreting these provisions however, has always brought about controversy since it seems every sections tries to interpret the provisions in manner that favors them. The freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental rights contained in the Bill of Rights and yet the most broad in terms of provisions and interpretation. For that reason, it is one of the most controversial. However, the case above has helped shed some light on the meaning of the provisions as contained in the First Amendment Act.
Works Cited
Hainam, Franklyn. Religious expression and the American Constitution. London: MSU Press, 2003. Print
Kubasek, Nancy, Browne, Neil, & Meyer, Andrea. Dynamic Business Law. NY: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2011. Print.
Murray, Bruce. Religious liberty in America: the First Amendment in historical and contemporary perspective. Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Press, 2008. Print.
Vile, John. A Companion to the United States Constitution and its Amendments. ABC- CLIO. New York 2010. Print.