Balancing Individual Rights and Common Good: A Historical Overview

1100 Words3 Pages

In today 's world, there are a lot of hot topics in the world of politics and social standings. Some that have been issues for decades. A great example is gun control that can be traced back to the 1939 case of "US vs Miller" that dealt with the where the line was drawn for the 2nd amendment. Some, however, are debates that have sparked up more recently like cell phone privacy. Regardless, many of these cases that are talked about so much today can be traced back to court cases dating back to 1857. All of them hold something in common, the fact that they attempt to most perfectly define the writing of the constitution. All Supreme Court decisions try their best to balance the two sides of a cases: Individual rights and the common good of everyone. …show more content…

Roe v Wade deals with abortion and the right to privacy, a very Individual rights driven case. This is somewhat different from Doe v Reed which deals with Public Records, a very common good driven case. Both deal with the right to privacy and where the line must be drawn on the amendments to the constitution, however, It was Roe v Wade that provides the best overall decision - the best balance of Common good v Individual rights. Roe v Wade was a case where Jane Roe, an unmarried pregnant Texas resident wanted to get an abortion but faced the obstacle of anti-abortion Texas law. When Roe filed a suit against Wade, the District Attorney of Dallas County, the case was taken to the Federal District Court and then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The issue was whether or not states could make laws to say that people can or cannot have abortions or if abortions fall under the category of an individual right. …show more content…

After a petition got the idea of challenging the act onto the ballot and lost, many individuals wanted to have the names of petition-signers released. Since these names were considered public record, Reed, The secretary of State in Washington, wanted to release them. Doe however, wanted to block the release of these signatures "due to the highly charged nature of the topic ' and their fear of harassment for the petition signers." Out of this came the question: "Does disclosing the names of petition signers violate those persons rights to anonymous political speech as protected by the 1st amendment? And if it does, does this mean that Washington state 's Public Records Act is unconstitutional?" The decision was based around the fact that the Public Records Act "is not a prohibition on speech, but a disclosure requirement that may burden the ability to speak, but does not prevent anyone from speaking." Otherwise saying that this act does not make it illegal to say anything, it doesn 't restrict anyone in any way from saying what they want to say. All it does is make it known that if someone does say something on paper, it is open to the

More about Balancing Individual Rights and Common Good: A Historical Overview

Open Document