Chicago Supreme Court of the United StatesTerminiello v. ChicagoCertiorari to the Supreme Court of IllinoisIssues:1. Was Terminiello’s right to free speech, which is protected under the Federal Constitution, violated, as applied in this case?2. Was the Chicago ordinance, as defined in this case, unconstitutional in its contents because it failed to provide support for the First Amendment?3. Was the inclusion of Terminiello’s speech as a violation of the Chicago ordinance on disorderly conduct unconstitutional?1. Facts: 1. Assumption/Application:1. Conclusion:The Supreme Court exercised its interpretation of the Constitution and found that a violation of the First Amendment was apparent and therefore, also a violation of the fourteenth Amendment showing that due process of the law was not given. The logical consequence of the application of the Stromberg case ruling to the Terminiello case was the reversal of the conviction. The Supreme Court did not challenge the constitutionality of the Chicago ordinance, but stated that in this case, free speech can not be denied to anyone even if such speech is considered to be provocative and unpopular in nature. The specifics of the Terminiello conviction were not explicit and, therefore, impenetrable by the inquiries of the Supreme Court. Without exact articulation of the conviction the Court could not dissect the verdict into parts that were applicable to Terminiello’s charge and conviction. Supreme Court of the United StatesTerminiello v. ChicagoJ. Jackson, dissentingIssue:1. Does the Supreme Court have the responsibility to interpret the constitutionality of a case, that is brought up for review as it is presented at its face value, or should it consider the ultimate impact that it could have on society?Principles:1. The Principle that best defines the issues of Justice Jackson is one that does not deny the ...
