Since its adoption, the US constitution has guided the nation. Resolving conflicts among such parties as the executive, the judiciary and the media is one of the functions that the constitution continues to serves. Relying on its provisions, courts provide guidance on how these parties should resolve disputes. However, there are some cases that are rather complex and different provisions of the constitution seem to be in conflict. The New York Times v. United States is one such case. After an examination of the details of this case and relevant provisions of the constitution, it is determined that the decision that the Supreme Court rendered was correct.
In New York Times v. United States, the government appealed to the Supreme Court to issue an order barring the New York Times from publishing information that the government argued would cause irreparable damage to the country’s defense if released (“New York Times Co.”, n.d). After considering the arguments raised by both parties, the court ruled in favor of the New York Times. It found that the government had failed to provide compelling reasons why the court should violate the First Amendment rights of the New York Times. This case underscores the delicate balance between constitutionally guaranteed rights and the government mandate to ensure the security of all Americans.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The First Amendment, and articles II and III of the US constitution contain provisions that relate to the case outlined above. Freedom of the press is the main issue that the First Amendment addresses. There is a provision that forbids the government from breaching the free speech rights of the press and the American people in general (Madison, 1788). When issuing its ruling, the Supreme Court was guided by the principle of the freedom of the press. By greenlighting the New York Times to proceed with publication, the court made it clear that it recognizes the importance of free speech. Articles II and III concern the powers of the president and the courts respectively. In article II, executive power is placed on the presidency while article III empowers the courts to adjudicate in matters of the law (Madison, 1788). Through its ruling, the court appears to have violated the provision of Article II regarding the executive power that the president exercises. However, the court redeemed itself by exercising the powers given by article III. Furthermore, before the case found its way to the Supreme Court, it had been heard by two lower courts which also found in favor of the New York Times. Therefore, by affirming the rulings issued by these courts, the Supreme Court essentially honored the provisions of Article III by acknowledging the power of the courts to issue binding judgments.
The living constitution and the originalist theories can also be used in the assessment of the Supreme Court ruling. On the one hand, the living constitution theory holds that the constitution should be interpreted in a way that accommodates the situation at a particular moment in time (Dorf, 2008). On the other hand, the originalist theory posits that when making sense of the constitution, one should be guided by the original intent of the framers of the constitution (Balkin, 2005). Preventing government over-reach must have been the original intent that drove the writing of the first amendment. Furthermore, when it issued its ruling, the Supreme Court was confronted with a situation involving a government involved in questionable military programs. Therefore, both the originalist and the living constitution theories endorse the Supreme Court ruling. Through the ruling, the court respected the original intent of the framers while accounting for the issues that the US was experiencing at the time.
References
Balkin, J. M. (2005). Alive and kicking. Slate. Retrieved March 16, 2019 from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2005/08/rumors-of-the-constitution-s-death-are-exaggerated.html
Dorf, M. C. (2008). Who killed the ‘living constitution’? Find Law. Retrieved March 16, 2019 from https://supreme.findlaw.com/legal-commentary/who-killed-the-living-constitution.html
Madison, J. (1788). The constitution. In Kirkpatrick signature series. Book 1 readings for weeks 1-3.
New York Times Co. v. United States. (n.d). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved March 16, 2019 from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/403/713
