Constitutional-Literacy-12

=**Section 12: Freedom of Association**=

In 1774, Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Continental Congress of his outrage that the British were not allowing groups that favored independence to meet and discuss their ideas. The Blackstone Commentaries are an influential treatise on the common law of England. This is where the idea of the right to assemble comes from - "That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common good." Joseph Story questioned the need for this provision since the republic would guarantee this right and felt this right would always naturally be there unless the people allow their government to restrict it. After some Supreme Court cases, the government grew in its ability to curtail this freedom leading many to question if the spirit of liberty has disappeared from our republic.


 * Comprehension Question: Which freedom in the First Amendment gives us the freedom of association (the First Amendment doesn't use the word association)?**


 * Comprehension Question: How did the British violate this freedom in the colonial period?**

In NAACP v. Alabama 1957 the Supreme Court had to look at an Alabama law that said members of the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) had to register with the state attorney general. Keep in mind 1957 was during the Jim Crow Era in the South. The Supreme Court ruled against this law saying it violated the rights of members. The Supreme Court ruling was good for individual freedom over government power. Virginia looked to stop the NAACP from lawsuits against segregated schools, which led to NAACP v. Button in 1961 when the Supreme Court again ruled for the NAACP. This was another good ruling for individual freedom over government power. It's important to understand that the NAACP that fought against the Jim Crow Laws isn't the same NAACP as today. Today's NAACP is much more Progressive in ideology.


 * Discussion Question: Why do you think the NAACP resisted the request of the state of Alabama for its membership lists in 1958?**

However, court protection of the freedom of association began to evaporate. In Roberts v. United States Jaycees in 1983 the Jaycees was limited to males and so the Supreme Court had to determine if this was discrimination against females and therefore a violation of rights. The Supreme Court ruled against the Jaycees. This ruling was good against discrimination, but bad in terms of a group being forced to abide by the court ruling, not the group's own by-laws. Does this violate the freedom of association to force a large private organization to accept women (or force a women's group to accept men)? This ruling against the Jaycees shows that the Supreme Court took it upon itself to evaluate the Jaycees and their ruling on what they considered gender discrimination was a compelling interest and set a precedent for other clubs.


 * Discussion Question: What is your opinion on the Jaycees case? Should groups that are based on a gender be allowed to exclude the other gender?**

A Boy Scouts' scoutmaster that was gay was dismissed by the scouts and went to court. The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with the scoutmaster based on the ruling in the Jaycees case. It would go to the Supreme Court. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale 1999 the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had the right to do this (control their own membership and membership standards). This ruling was the opposite of the Jaycees ruling. Four justices ruled for the scoutmaster while five went with the Boy Scouts. The Supreme Court did not rule that ALL groups can decide their own membership, so it didn't overturn the Jaycees case. This ruling was only for the Boy Scouts. The legal question should be who has the power to decide the membership policies of private clubs. The answer has been the Supreme Court based on their own biases and opinions.


 * Discussion Question: Should the Boy Scouts be allowed to keep homosexuals out of leadership positions? Why or why not?**

In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez 2010 the court had to look into a a university rule that said all groups had to sign a non-discrimination pledge. The Christian Legal Society was refused membership since they rejected leaders that weren't Christian (remember it's a Christian group for Christians). The group wouldn't allow non-Christians and homosexuals to be leaders. The Christian group lost on a 5-4 decision. They weren't forced to allow non-Christians and homosexuals, but they also were not given official recognition as a campus organization. This is an example of Secular-Progressives removing Judeo-Christian values when groups that are Christian groups are targeted - you'll notice that there aren't Christian groups trying to get into Atheist groups to undermine them.

Overall, it's important to maintain freedom of association just like our other freedoms and it's also important for our elected officials and court system to protect this freedom.


 * Discussion Question: Should the government be able to control the membership and leadership policies of any organization?**


 * Discussion Question: Based on your knowledge of liberal and conservative ideology, which ideology would favor more freedom of association and which would favor more government control of membership?**

**Overall: Summarize the main idea of this section and why it's important.**

Back to the Constitutional Literacy main page