BY JONATHAN CANNON
HERALD DEMOCRAT
"The honorable, the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States," the Court's Marshal shouts. "Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!"
On Oct. 5, these historic words resonated throughout the courtroom as the nine justices took their places. The scene has been the same throughout the Supreme Court's history as the justices have continually decided cases relating to issues that have divided and continue to divide our nation. This year's term is no different.
The justices will rule on cases relating to the establishment of religion and the right of individuals to bear arms to name a few. Though how narrowly or broadly they will rule, which will in turn affect the reach of the decisions, is yet to be seen.
National Rifle Association v. Chicago/McDonald v. Chicago
According to the NRA complaint filed against the city in June 2008, the city of Chicago has enacted an unconstitutional ban on an individual's right to bear arms. In complaint, the NRA contends that the Chicago ordinance violates the Second Amendment ("A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed") by way of the 14th Amendment ("No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws").
While the Bill of Rights only protected against federal government action, the 14th Amendment is cited as way to extend the Bill of Rights to state action.
The NRA complaint further argues that it extends to the states and their "political subdivisions."
Former Austin College professor Kenneth Street, who holds a doctorate in political science with emphasis on constitutional law, expressed concern that this logic, which was successfully argued in a similar case last year, is a slippery slope. Streeter pointed to last year's case, District of Columbia v. Heller, as an example of judicial activism. He said the justices should be simply discussing the constitutionality of the issue.
"If you do this right, that keeps you from reading your own prejudice into the ruling," he said. Street added that as the Second Amendment reads, it is clear that it was intended to protect the right to bear arms only as it relates to raising a militia.
Jason Webb, the owner of Red River Firearms in Sherman, said that he felt the law does extend the right to bear arms to private citizens, but admitted that it was an issue of interpretation. He added that rather than banning guns, however, the laws should be more focused on those who commit crimes with guns. "I'd really put it to the people that are causing crimes," he said.
For Second Amendment advocates, as well as their counterparts, this will be a case to watch as a broad decision, either way, could impact local gun legislation across the country.
"If the Supreme Court applies the new individual right recognized in the Heller case to overturn the city of Chicago's handgun bans, it will mark a major change in constitutional jurisprudence," Brown said.
Salazar v. Buono
According to court briefs, in 1934, the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross as a memorial to fallen soldiers on public land without government approval. It stood until 1999 when the U.S. Park Service denied a request to erect a Buddhist shrine near the cross, citing its plans to remove the cross. However, in 2001, Congress passed a law prohibiting the service from using government money to remove the cross.
Then in 2003, Congress ordered that the land be transferred to the VFW, where the establishment clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof") would no longer apply.
Now the question for the court is, did the government violate the clause and who owns the property now?
Street said how the court decides will depend on where they land with respect to three theories on the establishment clause. Street said the prevailing opinion currently seems to be that the government should be accommodating all religions -- in this case, allowing the Buddhist shrine.
"Civil liberty groups have long contended, and Supreme Court has in the past held, that this provision means not only that the government cannot establish a religion or church, but the government also cannot take an action which aids one, or all, religions or gives preference to or endorses one religion," said Grayson County District Attorney Joe Brown.
In this case, as with all Supreme Court decisions, the court can decide to rule narrowly -- deciding on the land ownership and avoiding the constitutional issue -- or broadly -- deciding if religious symbols on government property are a violation.
Brown said he looked for the court to make a broader decision, while Streeter said he hoped for a more narrow one. Streeter said this would stop what he described as a trend of judicial activism -- where justices base decisions on their feelings about the case and not on the government's authority to act.
"Others argue that the framers of the Constitution, by prohibiting government action 'respecting the establishment of religion,' were intending only to prevent the government from establishing a national religion or discriminating against any religious belief, and never intended to take the Christian God out of government," Brown said.
He explained that they point to religious symbols and references to God in the writings of the Founding Fathers as evidence.
"Either way the case is decided, we will continue to be a nation deeply divided about the role of God in society," Brown said.
Graham v. Florida/Sullivan v. Florida
At issue in the Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida cases is whether life in prison without the possibility of parole constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment.
In the Sullivan case, a 13-year-old with a previous criminal record committed sexual assault of an elderly woman. He was tried as an adult, found guilty and sentenced to life without parole. In the Graham case, a 19-year-old received the same sentence for attempted armed robbery and violating parole. He was on parole for two previous robbery attempts he committed as a minor.
These cases, too, use the 14th Amendment to apply a bill of rights to the states. Graham and Sullivan's attorneys argue that minors are uniquely positioned to be rehabilitated though correctional programs, and giving them a life without parole sentence denies them that chance.
"We're in the business of rehabilitation; we believe there is the ability to rehabilitate children," said Bill Bristow, director of Grayson County Youth Services. "From my perspective, I do believe there's occasion that a life sentence for a child should be handed down, but I believe there should be review."
Bristow said the review should come in the form of a parole board. And while he said a sentence without that review might be excessive for a minor, he advocated long sentences for some juveniles when the case warrants them.
"Having the ability to have that 14, 15, 16-year-old have a long term prison sentence, I think is appropriate," he said, while still stressing the importance of review.
Brown, however, said, "Those that would limit the punishments available to juries for serious crimes do not, in my opinion, understand the realities of crime. I believe in the jury system, and juries can take into consideration all of the arguments made by ... those who would have no juveniles sent to prison for life."
Brown pointed to the previous records of both juveniles in the cases as evidence "that they could not conform to society." However, he said, the occasion for such severe punishments for juveniles is rare.