Philosophy of Law, Term Paper Example

“Live free or die”- Ironically, this motto adopted by New Hampshire State in 1945 was far from liberating. It introduced the concept of “assertive freedom” which was an obvious violation of the Bill of Rights defined in the US constitution. The state required each registered motor vehicle to be branded with the state motto, thereby coercing its citizens into outwardly agreeing with them regardless of individual belief.The underlying problem that the government failed to acknowledge was that while acclaiming liberty complied with the nation’s shift towards “essential democracy”, individuals must always have the leeway to choose to differ in opinion –since aforced freedom is just a diminished form of slavery.

The situation was exacerbated when a local, Maynard was convicted by the police for exercising his constitutional right to “refrain from speaking” on grounds of disbelief in the new US motto. When the matter was taken to the justice system, citing a similar case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the court decided in favor of Maynard. Hence, the courts proved that US should care more about the provision of principal human rights to grant liberty rather than focusing on an inexplicable need to assert freedom in context. This was found agreeable by the majority because the state had been trying to take away 2 of the fundamental rights promised by the American Constitution: Freedom of Speech and the Right of Ownership. This speaks to Kant’s interpretation of utilitarianism. Do the needs of one out weigh the needs of many, or does the rule outweigh the act?

The violation of the aforementioned rights makes the case more special and disposed to an analysis in those regards where freedom of speech covers the State’s violation of an individual’s right to have an opinion, second to his/her right to speak while right of ownership comprises of the State’s predilection towards use of an individual’s asset as a “billboard”. This speaks to Cartesian concepts of self. What constitutes the limits of self, and how much intrusion into the breadth of self should the government be allowed?

Violation of Freedom of Speech

Although it was a simple matter of motor vehicle registration, the State basically denied an average citizen the right to opt out of putting on a controversial slogan. Besides violating ownership rights, the government was wrong in asserting its opinion on all citizens. There should have been flexibility for people who did not believe in an absolutely “free life”. The government should have ensured democracy for all regardless of the citizens’ opinions on liberty. The First Amendment in the US constitution assures all American citizens the right to choose so they should be free to opt between an autonomous or enslaved life or at least to have an opinion on the kind of life they would prefer.

As mentioned above, this was similar to when the court agreed to the Jehovah’s Witness that it was unconstitutional of the state schools to demand students to salute the flag (JACKSON). Regardless of the culture or belief system they follow, citizens should have the right to show reverence to the country in any manner or even to choose to not respect it at all.

Another breach of law that took place in the case under consideration is that of the Right of Speech. To be fair, there wasn’t any speech involved in principal. Hypothetically speaking had there been, it would have been have been a serious violation on account of speech being a bodily function. The Moore Case that identifies most closely with this situation provides justification for this argument.

“The court could find no legal authority, public policy nor publicly known facts of biological science…which compel a conclusion that this plaintiff’ cannot have a sufficient legal interest in his own bodily tissues amounting to personal property. Absent plaintiff’s consent to defendant’s disposition of the tissues, or lawful justification, such as abandonment, the complaint adequately pleads all the elements of a cause of action for conversion” (California)

Therefore there must be a genuine reason for using another person’s body, parts of body or bodily functions without their consent. In the world today, when many people blindly agree to such infractions the law must account for the philosophy of responsibility of action. It is the nature of the action that determines whether it can be classified as a crime. The group of people with a contrasting opinion believed that it could have been viewed as the Breithaupt v. Abramcase when the judges decided in the favor of the State because the evidence had not been “coerced out of him” (LEVY) . However, they failed to notice that it was a routine procedure that could not have been modified since there was no other way to prove his innocence. More importantly, the constitution does not allow citizens to withhold information during investigation of a crime. Since in Maynard’s case, his actions were based on the need to be respected for having a different belief system, so fundamentally, no violation of the existing constitution took place to form the new law.

Violation of Right of Ownership

In this context, the government tried to use a part of people’s property without consent since they believed it would have had an insubstantial effect. The two things to note here are the State’s assumption regarding the ramifications of their action and their forceful use of a part of Maynard’s property. In effect as per Dan Cohen’s interpretation, this was a rather totalitarian view of things since a free country must value the right of ownership (Dan-Cohen). The American constitution talks about it at length and assures its people of absolute control over their assets in terms of punishments for those who try to take it away without mutual agreement. Ironically, in this case, it was the government that committed a felony by attempting to assert their choice of vehicle registration label on a part of Maynard’s car. Conclusively they were defending their illegitimate use of Maynard’s car.

The case is similar in nature to that of Lovett v. West Virginia Central Gas Company. The judges decided in the favor of Lovett because resources in a landowner’s property are also subjected to his/ her ownership (MARSHALL). Therefore they have the right to use it in any preferred manner i.e they can charge people for using it or deny people the right to use it at all. It is not up to an individual to attempt to trespass the boundaries or benefit from anything within the boundary without permission from the said owner. Although many would argue that vehicle registration labels are necessary for identification like Breithaupt v. Abram and that responsibility of action must always be taken into consideration. However, it must also be noted that while the government has a right to put on a label, it does not have the right to use a citizen’s asset to advertise it motto. The state is only entitle to identification and must not find loopholes to work around the system to breach people’s right of ownership.

Conclusion

The courts made a justifiable decision in solving this case. Although, people with a contradictory view kept hinting towards the theory of responsibility of action to pass judgment, it must be noted that the State hadn’t exactly been responsible in their conduct in Maynard’s case. They attempted to force their way into their citizens’ lives and belief systems a voluntary violation of the US constitution. And it could not be reasoned with because establishers of law and order must not enjoy freeway to adjust the law to suit them.

Works Cited

California, Supreme Court Of. “Moore V. Regents Of The University Of California .” California , 1990.

Dan-Cohen, Meir. “The Value Of Ownership.” Journal Of Political Philospohy 2001: 404.

Jackson, J., Opinion Of The Court. “Legal Information Institute : West Virginia State Board Of Education V. Barnette Appeal From The District Court Of The United States For The Southern District Of West Virginia.” Cornell University Law School. <Http://Www.Law.Cornell.Edu/Supct/Html/Historics/Ussc_Cr_0458_0419_Zo.Html>.

Levy, Leonard W. “Breithaupt V. Abram 352 U.S. 432 (1957).” Encylopedia Of The American Constitution (Volume 1). Macmillan Reference Usa, 1986.

Marshall, J Opinion Of The Court. “Legal Information Institute: Loretto V. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. Appeal From The Court Of Appeals Of New York.” Cornell Univeristy Law School. <Http://Www.Law.Cornell.Edu/Supct/Html/Historics/Ussc_Cr_0458_0419_Zo.Html>.