LEB2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words

LEB2 - Essay ExampleHowever, foreign firms that organized chthonic the laws of a state other than aluminium were forbidden from similarly negotiating its tax base. These disparities lead to the Reynolds Metal confederation to sue the Alabama tax authorities. Reynolds Metal and other sought to be refunded for taxes paid to Alabama on the grounds the state discriminated against foreign companies under the Commerce and Equal Protection Clauses. The Alabama arrogant cost rejected Reynoldss claim, citing additional burdens on foreign business offset the burdens placed upon domestic businesses. An Alabama trail court confirmed the franchise tax to be discriminatory, but dismissed their claims citing the precedent of the Reynolds case. The U.S. Supreme Court found the states franchise taxes against foreign firms to be discriminatory. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court conclude Alabama failed to justify its lack of tax negotiating ability for foreign firms when compared to the burdens pla ced upon domestic firms. Restrictions on liberty of diction On the 200th anniversary of the ratification of the Bill of Rights (December 15, 1991), the American Bar Association conducted poll. A mere 33% of those polled successfully identified the bill of rights. (The New York Times) A decade later, sparring senatorial candidates flubbed the identification of elements comprising the First Amendment. (Johnson) In light of these egregious cognitive failings, the common American can notice with the concept of Freedom of Speech. However, these same failings in common constituent(a) education micturate it clear that hardly a(prenominal) are aware of the existence of exceptions to freedom of speech. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states in part that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech Contrary to popular belief, this does not provide the right for the case-by-case American to say what he/she wants, when he/she wants, how he/she wants to. While freedom of speech exists, it is provided to the people with restrictions, conditions, and resistances. The exemption of obscenity is unique in that the Supreme Court has denied First Amendment protections to obscenity without regard to whether it is, or is not harmful to others. It has been determined by the Supreme Court that obscenity was outside the protection intended for speech when the First Amendment was adopted. (ROTH v. UNITED STATES, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) ) This ruling has essentially banned obscenity in the interest of social mark and morality. It is important to note that obscenity and pornography are not one in the same. As close to pornography is not legally obscene, pornography enjoys First Amendment protections due to the fact it does not have to come on all elements of the Miller Test. (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 27 (1973)). One could argue that the Supreme Court has set some really profound precedents in the restrictions of freedom of speech, but the res trictions of speech are far more impacting long in advance the Supreme or any other court hears the case. The Supreme Court has made it clear employees of the authorities have the right to free speech when addressing matters of public concern. The Supreme Court has also determined it constitutional for the state to both suspend without pay and terminate employees under the guise of efficiency of service when the employee is devising false statements against others in government. Many government