Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Can the government require people to get a special license in order to spread their religious message or promote their religious beliefs in residential neighborhoods? That used to be common, but it was challenged by Jehovahs Witnesses who argued that the government didnt have the authority to impose such restrictions on people. Fast Facts: Cantwell v. Connecticut Case Argued: March 29, 1940Decision Issued: May 20, 1940Petitioner: Newton D. Cantwell, Jesse L. Cantwell, and Russell D. Cantwell, Jehovahs Witnesses proselytizing in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut, who were arrested and convicted under a Connecticut statute banning the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposesRespondent: The state of ConnecticutKey Question: Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First Amendment?  Majority Decision: Justices Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, MurphyDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech violating the First Amendments guarantee of free speech as well as the First and 14th Amendments guarantee of the right to the free exercise of religion. Background Information Newton Cantwell and his two sons traveled to New Haven, Connecticut, in order to promote their message as Jehovahs Witnesses. In New Haven, a statute required that anyone wishing to solicit funds or distribute materials had to apply for a license - if the official in charge found that they were a bona fide charity or religious, then a license would be granted. Otherwise, a license was denied. The Cantwells did not apply for a license because, in their opinion, the government was in no position to certify Witnesses as a religion - such a decision was simply outside the governments secular authority. As a result they were were convicted under a statute which forbade the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposes, and also under a general charge of breach of the peace because they had been going door-to-door with books and pamphlets in a predominantly Roman Catholic area, playing a record entitled Enemies which attacked Catholicism. Cantwell alleged that the statute they had been convicted under infringed upon their right to free speech and challenged it in the courts. Court Decision With Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court found that statutes requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech and gave the government too much power in determining which groups were permitted to solicit. The officer who issued licenses for solicitation was authorized to inquire whether the applicant did have a religious cause and to decline a license if in his view the cause was not religious, which gave government officials too much authority over religious questions. Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth. Even if an error by the secretary can be corrected by the courts, the process still serves as an unconstitutional prior restraint: To condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution. The breach of the peace accusation arose because the three accosted two Catholics in a strongly Catholic neighborhood and played them a phonograph record which, in their opinion, insulted the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The Court voided this conviction under the clear-and-present danger test, ruling that the interest sought to be upheld by the State did not justify the suppression of religious views that simply annoyed others. Cantwell and his sons may have been spreading a message that was unwelcome and disturbing, but they did not physically attack anyone. According to the Court, the Cantwells simply did not pose a threat to public order merely by spreading their message: In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probabilities of excesses and abuses, these liberties are in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy. Significance This judgment prohibited governments from creating special requirements for people spreading religious ideas and sharing a message in an unfriendly environment because such speech acts do not automatically represent a threat to public order. This decision was also notable because it was the first time that the Court had incorporated the Free Exercise Clause into the Fourteenth Amendment - and after this case, it always has.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Can the government require people to get a special license in order to spread their religious message or promote their religious beliefs in residential neighborhoods? That used to be common, but it was challenged by Jehovahs Witnesses who argued that the government didnt have the authority to impose such restrictions on people. Fast Facts: Cantwell v. Connecticut Case Argued: March 29, 1940Decision Issued: May 20, 1940Petitioner: Newton D. Cantwell, Jesse L. Cantwell, and Russell D. Cantwell, Jehovahs Witnesses proselytizing in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut, who were arrested and convicted under a Connecticut statute banning the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposesRespondent: The state of ConnecticutKey Question: Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First Amendment?  Majority Decision: Justices Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, MurphyDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech violating the First Amendments guarantee of free speech as well as the First and 14th Amendments guarantee of the right to the free exercise of religion. Background Information Newton Cantwell and his two sons traveled to New Haven, Connecticut, in order to promote their message as Jehovahs Witnesses. In New Haven, a statute required that anyone wishing to solicit funds or distribute materials had to apply for a license - if the official in charge found that they were a bona fide charity or religious, then a license would be granted. Otherwise, a license was denied. The Cantwells did not apply for a license because, in their opinion, the government was in no position to certify Witnesses as a religion - such a decision was simply outside the governments secular authority. As a result they were were convicted under a statute which forbade the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposes, and also under a general charge of breach of the peace because they had been going door-to-door with books and pamphlets in a predominantly Roman Catholic area, playing a record entitled Enemies which attacked Catholicism. Cantwell alleged that the statute they had been convicted under infringed upon their right to free speech and challenged it in the courts. Court Decision With Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court found that statutes requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech and gave the government too much power in determining which groups were permitted to solicit. The officer who issued licenses for solicitation was authorized to inquire whether the applicant did have a religious cause and to decline a license if in his view the cause was not religious, which gave government officials too much authority over religious questions. Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth. Even if an error by the secretary can be corrected by the courts, the process still serves as an unconstitutional prior restraint: To condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution. The breach of the peace accusation arose because the three accosted two Catholics in a strongly Catholic neighborhood and played them a phonograph record which, in their opinion, insulted the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The Court voided this conviction under the clear-and-present danger test, ruling that the interest sought to be upheld by the State did not justify the suppression of religious views that simply annoyed others. Cantwell and his sons may have been spreading a message that was unwelcome and disturbing, but they did not physically attack anyone. According to the Court, the Cantwells simply did not pose a threat to public order merely by spreading their message: In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probabilities of excesses and abuses, these liberties are in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy. Significance This judgment prohibited governments from creating special requirements for people spreading religious ideas and sharing a message in an unfriendly environment because such speech acts do not automatically represent a threat to public order. This decision was also notable because it was the first time that the Court had incorporated the Free Exercise Clause into the Fourteenth Amendment - and after this case, it always has.

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)

Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Can the government require people to get a special license in order to spread their religious message or promote their religious beliefs in residential neighborhoods? That used to be common, but it was challenged by Jehovahs Witnesses who argued that the government didnt have the authority to impose such restrictions on people. Fast Facts: Cantwell v. Connecticut Case Argued: March 29, 1940Decision Issued: May 20, 1940Petitioner: Newton D. Cantwell, Jesse L. Cantwell, and Russell D. Cantwell, Jehovahs Witnesses proselytizing in a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut, who were arrested and convicted under a Connecticut statute banning the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposesRespondent: The state of ConnecticutKey Question: Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First Amendment?  Majority Decision: Justices Hughes, McReynolds, Stone, Roberts, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Douglas, MurphyDissenting: NoneRuling: The Supreme Court ruled that statute requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech violating the First Amendments guarantee of free speech as well as the First and 14th Amendments guarantee of the right to the free exercise of religion. Background Information Newton Cantwell and his two sons traveled to New Haven, Connecticut, in order to promote their message as Jehovahs Witnesses. In New Haven, a statute required that anyone wishing to solicit funds or distribute materials had to apply for a license - if the official in charge found that they were a bona fide charity or religious, then a license would be granted. Otherwise, a license was denied. The Cantwells did not apply for a license because, in their opinion, the government was in no position to certify Witnesses as a religion - such a decision was simply outside the governments secular authority. As a result they were were convicted under a statute which forbade the unlicensed soliciting of funds for religious or charitable purposes, and also under a general charge of breach of the peace because they had been going door-to-door with books and pamphlets in a predominantly Roman Catholic area, playing a record entitled Enemies which attacked Catholicism. Cantwell alleged that the statute they had been convicted under infringed upon their right to free speech and challenged it in the courts. Court Decision With Justice Roberts writing the majority opinion, the Supreme Court found that statutes requiring a license to solicit for religious purposes constituted a prior restraint upon speech and gave the government too much power in determining which groups were permitted to solicit. The officer who issued licenses for solicitation was authorized to inquire whether the applicant did have a religious cause and to decline a license if in his view the cause was not religious, which gave government officials too much authority over religious questions. Such a censorship of religion as the means of determining its right to survive is a denial of liberty protected by the First Amendment and included in the liberty which is within the protection of the Fourteenth. Even if an error by the secretary can be corrected by the courts, the process still serves as an unconstitutional prior restraint: To condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution. The breach of the peace accusation arose because the three accosted two Catholics in a strongly Catholic neighborhood and played them a phonograph record which, in their opinion, insulted the Christian religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. The Court voided this conviction under the clear-and-present danger test, ruling that the interest sought to be upheld by the State did not justify the suppression of religious views that simply annoyed others. Cantwell and his sons may have been spreading a message that was unwelcome and disturbing, but they did not physically attack anyone. According to the Court, the Cantwells simply did not pose a threat to public order merely by spreading their message: In the realm of religious faith, and in that of political belief, sharp differences arise. In both fields the tenets of one man may seem the rankest error to his neighbor. To persuade others to his own point of view, the pleader, as we know, at times, resorts to exaggeration, to vilification of men who have been, or are, prominent in church or state, and even to false statement. But the people of this nation have ordained in the light of history, that, in spite of the probabilities of excesses and abuses, these liberties are in the long view, essential to enlightened opinion and right conduct on the part of the citizens of a democracy. Significance This judgment prohibited governments from creating special requirements for people spreading religious ideas and sharing a message in an unfriendly environment because such speech acts do not automatically represent a threat to public order. This decision was also notable because it was the first time that the Court had incorporated the Free Exercise Clause into the Fourteenth Amendment - and after this case, it always has.

Background for cgeesecack factory restaurant Essay

Background for cgeesecack factory restaurant - Essay Example In 1975, Evelyn started to make a variety of delicious cheesecakes and some fantastic desserts that were sold by thousands of wholesale accounts. Just after thirty years, with one hundred and seventy locations, the success of the cheesecake factory has made it a great success story for the American. The restaurant looked impressive. There were many apartments to be seated in. There was an oval bar off to the right of the entrance. There were two levels of seating and some were in open areas while others were in off to the side areas for quiet or even romantic dining. The people were dressed in a variety of ways. Some folks had on shorts and others were dressed up in beautiful special evening clothing. As we looked around we noticed the servers were smiling, happy and courteous with everyone – no matter what they were ordering. People ordered pizza, snacks, sandwiches, appetizers and meals or any combination of those items. We wanted to stay at the restaurant for a while so we could watch people for this paper, so we ate a very small lunch and saved our appetite for this evening out. This assignment is a combination of our observations. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurant was our choice for this assignment because everyone tells us how great the food is and how much fun it is to eat there. We have been told they have good and friendly service, sports on the televisions around the whole restaurant, and good food. We are international students and know that there are many thoughts that go through our minds as we spend time in a restaurant. People of all nationalities, races, colors, and cultural backgrounds appeared at the restaurant during our time there. It does not cater to one specific group of people. As we consider the people we see we try to guess as many details about them as possible by their dress, mannerisms, skin color, and language. We believe people’s culture is an asset to our goal of international business

Impact of London Olympics 2012 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

Impact of London Olympics 2012 - Essay Example The 2012 Olympics will give a fillip to the London economy, and it is a major opportunity for all organizations in the metropolis. Stadiums, swimming pools, courts, residential accommodation for athletes, officials and for spectators spring first to mind when most people think of the economic fall-out of a city being chosen for the Olympics. Physical assets have limits in reality, for returns cannot be achieved without qualified, skilled, experienced and motivated teams of people. The 2012 Olympics is a challenge for Human Resources Management, as much as it is a chance for civil engineers and architects to get busy! The Olympics represent an acute opportunity that comes to a city for about a week like a comet, once in decades! It nears years of careful preparation, with a full agenda for Personnel departments. Every function tends to inflate its own importance, but even those who are not full-time professionals from the Human Resources field will agree that finding and retaining people of the right caliber is going to be a major obstacle to be overcome, for any London institution to reap the rewards of their h ome city being selected for the 2012 Olympics. This document attempts to develop some key policies for a chosen London organization, so that it prepares for this major world event. Every metropolis has an aquarium, and London is not lacking in this respect. The London Aquarium has an especially spectacular collection, and a central location that puts it in the path of major tour operators and individual tourists alike. It has certain appeal for all the people who will come to London to watch some part of the Olympics. The 2012 event promises to be a chance for the London Aquarium to experience a surge in revenues if it is able to gear up for the flood of visitors who will descend on London from all corners of the globe. Young people from parts of the United Kingdom other than London itself will be amongst the most prized