materially and substantially interfere with the operation of the school Dissent

Materially and substantially interfere with the

This preview shows page 15 - 17 out of 17 pages.

"materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school Dissent: Justice Hugo L. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the
Image of page 15
right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. Vocabulary: The 1 st Amendment Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Background: Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. Constitutional Question: Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons? Conclusion: The Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade. In the majority opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger, the Court found that the values and programs of secondary school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion," and that an additional one or two years of high school would not produce the benefits of public education cited by Wisconsin to justify the law. Vocabulary: 1 st Amendment Roe v. Wade (1973) Background: In 1970, Jane Roe filed a lawsuit against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas, where she resided, challenging a Texas law making abortion illegal except by a doctor’s orders to save a woman’s life. In her lawsuit, Roe alleged that the state laws were unconstitutionally vague and abridged her right of personal privacy, protected by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution recognize a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Image of page 16
Conclusion: Inherent in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is a fundamental “right to privacy” that protects a pregnant woman’s choice whether to have an abortion. However, this right is balanced against the government’s interests in protecting women's health and protecting “the potentiality of human life.” The Texas law challenged in this case violated this right. Justice Harry Blackmun delivered the opinion for the 7-2 majority of the Court. Vocabulary: Due Process; 1 st , 4 th , 5 th , 9 th and 14 th Amendment; “Right to Privacy”
Image of page 17

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 17 pages?

  • Fall '19
  • First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture