case brief, Barenblatt v. U.S. (1959)

Case brief: Barenblatt v. U.S. (1959) Insert name: Institution affiliation: Due date: Case: Barenblatt v. US Course: 442 U.S. 756 Date: (1959) Fact: During 1954, June 28th, Barenblatt, the professor at Vassar College, was summoned and appeared to testify before the house Un-American committee during an investigation into the field of education. Barenblatt answered some general questions but declined to answer five particular questions concerning his religious or political beliefs or any other associational activities or private and personal affairs. Since he declined to answer these important questions, he was imprisoned because he disrespected the congress. Statutory provision: There was a conflict between the statutory provision and constitutional provision. The state legislation gave the congress the legal authority to investigate or inquire about communist activities in the nation while the constitutional provision under the first amendment gave the defendant the rights to exercise his private activities. Constitutional provision: First amendment of the U.S constitution is involved in this case. Legal question: Are the statutory powers given the congress violated first amendments rights of individuals? Reasoning: The decision of the Supreme Court to convict Barenblatt was valid because the defendant disrespected the congress. Barenblatt refused to give specific answers to the vital questions that the congress was asking. The conviction did not break the first amendment rights of the defendant. Nevertheless, Barenblatt felt that his rights were infringed since he perceived that the committee was compelling him to reveal his private activities. Constitutional provision of congressional power gave the committee the legal power to summon and interrogate suspected individuals. Based on the historical preliminary; the congress had the legal power to investigate any involvement in communist activities in the nation as an approach of restoring national security. However, Barenblatt contended that the claim given by committee was vague that could not be constitutionally permissible or legislative authorized. Barenblatt argued that he was not informed why the committee’s inquiry was essential to the subject matter of the investigation. He felt that the questions that the committee asked violated his first amendment rights. The committee was legally authorized to investigate communist activities in the country; therefore, it did not violate the rule of law by focusing its attention in the education sector and forcing Barenblatt to present himself for interrogation. The defendant ought to have not defended himself by using first amendment rights to decline to inform the committee whether he was involved with the communist party. Moreover, Barenblatt had no basis for this claim that he was not effectively informed about the relevance of the questions. The committee’s questions concerning Barenblatt’s...