add site
services
publishers
database
health videos
toolbar
stats
live show
health store
more stuff
JOIN/LOGIN
| advertise add site services publishers database health videos
| | about toolbar stats live show health store more stuff JOIN/LOGIN |
Digital Orthotics, Inc. - United States Olympics Testimonials digitalorthotics.com | Spas in the United States | by State spa-addicts.com | Surgeons that we know in the United States askdrwu.com | United States Sports Chiropractic Federation usscf.org |
Barenblatt v. United States, 360 U.S. 109 (1959), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee did not violate the First Amendment and, thus, the Court upheld Barenblatt's conviction for contempt of Congress. The Court held that the congressional committee had authority to compel a college professor to answer questions about his Communist Party membership.
[edit] Introduction
[edit] Facts of the case
During hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Lloyd Barenblatt, refused to answer questions concerning his political and religious beliefs along with his associational activities. He was found in contempt of Congress for failing to cooperate with the committee investigation. The decision was made on June 8, 1959. [edit] Prior history
[edit] Decision of the Court
The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that HUAAC did not violate Barenblatt's First Amendment rights. Justice Harlan's opinion stated that "Where First Amendment rights are asserted to bar governmental interrogation, resolution of the issue involves a balancing of the competing private and public interests." Harlan then struck a balance in favor of the government: "That Congress has wide power to legislate in the field of Communist activity in this Country, and to conduct appropriate investigations in aid thereof, is hardly debatable. This power rests on the right of self-preservation, the ultimate value of any society." This governmental interest was found to outweigh Professor Barenblatt's First Amendment interest in studying, discussing, and associating with those interested in the theories of Communism. Professor Barenblatt claimed he never sought to overthrow the government through his discussions of Communism. Nevertheless, the Court deferred to Congress's power to investigate for legislative purposes. [edit] Concurring opinions
[edit] Dissenting opinions
Justice Black, who was often a champion of personal liberty and free expression (though not always, he did author the opinion in Korematsu which permitted the government to send American citizens of Japanese dissent to internment camps) rejects the Court's balancing test: "I do not agree that laws directly abridging First Amendment freedoms can be justified by a balancing process." Justice Black, assuming a balancing test is proper, then argues why the Court struck the wrong balance. This quote, in particular - in which Black argues that the Court misunderstands Barenblatt's interest under their balancing test - displays Justice Black's greatness, "[the balancing test] completely leaves out the real interest in Barenblatt's silence, the interest of the people as a whole in being able to join organizations, advocate causes and make political 'mistakes' without later being subjected to governmental penalties for having dared to think for themselves." [edit] Effects of the decision
Expands Congress's power. [edit] Critical response
[edit] Subsequent history
[edit] References[edit] See also[edit] External links | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ↑ top of page ↑ | about thumbshots |
