Mixing
Is the right to engage in scientific inquiry a fundamental right?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am curious as to whether there is any precedent in the U.S. regarding the level of scrutiny applied to 14th amendment claims against statutes that hinder a person's ability to engage in scientific research. In particular, whether the courts have deemed the right to engage in science as "inherent in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply entrenched in our country's morals and traditions." It seems plausible to me that a case could be made for this, which would raise the level of scrutiny above rational basis.
united-states constitutional-law
asked 2 hours ago
David Reed
1563
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am curious as to whether there is any precedent in the U.S. regarding the level of scrutiny applied to 14th amendment claims against statutes that hinder a person's ability to engage in scientific research. In particular, whether the courts have deemed the right to engage in science as "inherent in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply entrenched in our country's morals and traditions." It seems plausible to me that a case could be made for this, which would raise the level of scrutiny above rational basis.
united-states constitutional-law
asked 2 hours ago
David Reed
1563
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am curious as to whether there is any precedent in the U.S. regarding the level of scrutiny applied to 14th amendment claims against statutes that hinder a person's ability to engage in scientific research. In particular, whether the courts have deemed the right to engage in science as "inherent in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply entrenched in our country's morals and traditions." It seems plausible to me that a case could be made for this, which would raise the level of scrutiny above rational basis.
united-states constitutional-law
asked 2 hours ago
David Reed
1563
I am curious as to whether there is any precedent in the U.S. regarding the level of scrutiny applied to 14th amendment claims against statutes that hinder a person's ability to engage in scientific research. In particular, whether the courts have deemed the right to engage in science as "inherent in the concept of ordered liberty" or "deeply entrenched in our country's morals and traditions." It seems plausible to me that a case could be made for this, which would raise the level of scrutiny above rational basis.
united-states constitutional-law
united-states constitutional-law
asked 2 hours ago
David Reed
1563
asked 2 hours ago
David Reed
1563
asked 2 hours ago
David Reed
1563
asked 2 hours ago
David Reed
1563
asked 2 hours ago
David Reed
1563
1563
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
There is some precedent for claiming a right to free scientific inquiry. For example, the primary holding of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 is that "Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (note the omission of commercial speech). In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, the court overturned a law banning teaching children foreign languages, finding that such a law "invades the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment", and observing
While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the
liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and
some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without
doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also
the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to
the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those
privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 the court finds that
the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First
Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of
freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to
print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to
read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 143) and freedom
of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v.
Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 344 U. S. 195) -- indeed, the freedom of the
entire university community.
In Henley v. Wise, 303 F. Supp. 62, the court found unconstitutional an Indiana law that would have outlawed research done at the Kinsey Institute at IU (that would have been a later consequence of the law, not the instant matter), stating that "This chilling effect on the research, development and exchange of scholarly ideas is repugnant to the First Amendment", and
the state has unconstitutionally intruded itself into two areas of
protected activity. The first protected area is the right of scholars
to do research and advance the state of man's knowledge. This is the
freedom of inquiry referred to in Griswold v. Connecticut
Then in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, the court glancingly groups academic research with other forms of First Amendment protected activities:
Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" which "is not
confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces
pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation
comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of
information and opinion." The informative function asserted by
representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also
performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic
researchers, and dramatists.
Article 25 of the California constitution recognizes a specific research right
There is hereby established a right to conduct stem cell research
which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem
cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells.
However, there have also been (failed) attempts at the federal level to prohibit such research.
More generally, one might look into rulings on acts which are preludes to any form of expression, such as buying paper and ink, acquiring a printing press, hiring reporters, and investigations of events by reporters – it is unlikely that the courts would uphold a law that outlaws reporters investigating crimes or political situations because that is not yet "expression". Indeed, "freedom of the press" does not just refer to the act of disseminating ideas and information. But a definitive court ruling has not been made.
answered 48 mins ago
user6726
51.1k24386
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is no body of constitutional law to that effect.
In part, this is because the non-constitutional tradition of academic freedom is so great.
Once research is done, publication of that research has strong academic freedom protections, but there is no real case law suggesting that the scientific inquiry itself is protected.
For example, cases regarding whether stem cell research should be permitted are not argued in a manner that raises constitutional questions.
answered 1 hour ago
ohwilleke
44.8k252113
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
There is some precedent for claiming a right to free scientific inquiry. For example, the primary holding of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 is that "Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (note the omission of commercial speech). In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, the court overturned a law banning teaching children foreign languages, finding that such a law "invades the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment", and observing
While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the
liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and
some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without
doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also
the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to
the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those
privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 the court finds that
the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First
Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of
freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to
print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to
read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 143) and freedom
of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v.
Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 344 U. S. 195) -- indeed, the freedom of the
entire university community.
In Henley v. Wise, 303 F. Supp. 62, the court found unconstitutional an Indiana law that would have outlawed research done at the Kinsey Institute at IU (that would have been a later consequence of the law, not the instant matter), stating that "This chilling effect on the research, development and exchange of scholarly ideas is repugnant to the First Amendment", and
the state has unconstitutionally intruded itself into two areas of
protected activity. The first protected area is the right of scholars
to do research and advance the state of man's knowledge. This is the
freedom of inquiry referred to in Griswold v. Connecticut
Then in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, the court glancingly groups academic research with other forms of First Amendment protected activities:
Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" which "is not
confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces
pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation
comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of
information and opinion." The informative function asserted by
representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also
performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic
researchers, and dramatists.
Article 25 of the California constitution recognizes a specific research right
There is hereby established a right to conduct stem cell research
which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem
cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells.
However, there have also been (failed) attempts at the federal level to prohibit such research.
More generally, one might look into rulings on acts which are preludes to any form of expression, such as buying paper and ink, acquiring a printing press, hiring reporters, and investigations of events by reporters – it is unlikely that the courts would uphold a law that outlaws reporters investigating crimes or political situations because that is not yet "expression". Indeed, "freedom of the press" does not just refer to the act of disseminating ideas and information. But a definitive court ruling has not been made.
answered 48 mins ago
user6726
51.1k24386
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
There is some precedent for claiming a right to free scientific inquiry. For example, the primary holding of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 is that "Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (note the omission of commercial speech). In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, the court overturned a law banning teaching children foreign languages, finding that such a law "invades the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment", and observing
While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the
liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and
some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without
doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also
the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to
the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those
privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 the court finds that
the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First
Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of
freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to
print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to
read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 143) and freedom
of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v.
Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 344 U. S. 195) -- indeed, the freedom of the
entire university community.
In Henley v. Wise, 303 F. Supp. 62, the court found unconstitutional an Indiana law that would have outlawed research done at the Kinsey Institute at IU (that would have been a later consequence of the law, not the instant matter), stating that "This chilling effect on the research, development and exchange of scholarly ideas is repugnant to the First Amendment", and
the state has unconstitutionally intruded itself into two areas of
protected activity. The first protected area is the right of scholars
to do research and advance the state of man's knowledge. This is the
freedom of inquiry referred to in Griswold v. Connecticut
Then in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, the court glancingly groups academic research with other forms of First Amendment protected activities:
Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" which "is not
confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces
pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation
comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of
information and opinion." The informative function asserted by
representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also
performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic
researchers, and dramatists.
Article 25 of the California constitution recognizes a specific research right
There is hereby established a right to conduct stem cell research
which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem
cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells.
However, there have also been (failed) attempts at the federal level to prohibit such research.
More generally, one might look into rulings on acts which are preludes to any form of expression, such as buying paper and ink, acquiring a printing press, hiring reporters, and investigations of events by reporters – it is unlikely that the courts would uphold a law that outlaws reporters investigating crimes or political situations because that is not yet "expression". Indeed, "freedom of the press" does not just refer to the act of disseminating ideas and information. But a definitive court ruling has not been made.
answered 48 mins ago
user6726
51.1k24386
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
There is some precedent for claiming a right to free scientific inquiry. For example, the primary holding of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 is that "Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (note the omission of commercial speech). In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, the court overturned a law banning teaching children foreign languages, finding that such a law "invades the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment", and observing
While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the
liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and
some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without
doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also
the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to
the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those
privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 the court finds that
the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First
Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of
freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to
print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to
read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 143) and freedom
of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v.
Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 344 U. S. 195) -- indeed, the freedom of the
entire university community.
In Henley v. Wise, 303 F. Supp. 62, the court found unconstitutional an Indiana law that would have outlawed research done at the Kinsey Institute at IU (that would have been a later consequence of the law, not the instant matter), stating that "This chilling effect on the research, development and exchange of scholarly ideas is repugnant to the First Amendment", and
the state has unconstitutionally intruded itself into two areas of
protected activity. The first protected area is the right of scholars
to do research and advance the state of man's knowledge. This is the
freedom of inquiry referred to in Griswold v. Connecticut
Then in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, the court glancingly groups academic research with other forms of First Amendment protected activities:
Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" which "is not
confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces
pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation
comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of
information and opinion." The informative function asserted by
representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also
performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic
researchers, and dramatists.
Article 25 of the California constitution recognizes a specific research right
There is hereby established a right to conduct stem cell research
which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem
cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells.
However, there have also been (failed) attempts at the federal level to prohibit such research.
More generally, one might look into rulings on acts which are preludes to any form of expression, such as buying paper and ink, acquiring a printing press, hiring reporters, and investigations of events by reporters – it is unlikely that the courts would uphold a law that outlaws reporters investigating crimes or political situations because that is not yet "expression". Indeed, "freedom of the press" does not just refer to the act of disseminating ideas and information. But a definitive court ruling has not been made.
answered 48 mins ago
user6726
51.1k24386
There is some precedent for claiming a right to free scientific inquiry. For example, the primary holding of Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 is that "Speech that is obscene and thus lacking First Amendment protection must be without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (note the omission of commercial speech). In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, the court overturned a law banning teaching children foreign languages, finding that such a law "invades the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment", and observing
While this Court has not attempted to define with exactness the
liberty thus guaranteed, the term has received much consideration and
some of the included things have been definitely stated. Without
doubt, it denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also
the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the
common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry,
establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to
the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those
privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly
pursuit of happiness by free men
In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 the court finds that
the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First
Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of
freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to
print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to
read (Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141, 319 U. S. 143) and freedom
of inquiry, freedom of thought, and freedom to teach (see Wiemann v.
Updegraff, 344 U. S. 183, 344 U. S. 195) -- indeed, the freedom of the
entire university community.
In Henley v. Wise, 303 F. Supp. 62, the court found unconstitutional an Indiana law that would have outlawed research done at the Kinsey Institute at IU (that would have been a later consequence of the law, not the instant matter), stating that "This chilling effect on the research, development and exchange of scholarly ideas is repugnant to the First Amendment", and
the state has unconstitutionally intruded itself into two areas of
protected activity. The first protected area is the right of scholars
to do research and advance the state of man's knowledge. This is the
freedom of inquiry referred to in Griswold v. Connecticut
Then in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, the court glancingly groups academic research with other forms of First Amendment protected activities:
Freedom of the press is a "fundamental personal right" which "is not
confined to newspapers and periodicals. It necessarily embraces
pamphlets and leaflets. . . . The press in its historic connotation
comprehends every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of
information and opinion." The informative function asserted by
representatives of the organized press in the present cases is also
performed by lecturers, political pollsters, novelists, academic
researchers, and dramatists.
Article 25 of the California constitution recognizes a specific research right
There is hereby established a right to conduct stem cell research
which includes research involving adult stem cells, cord blood stem
cells, pluripotent stem cells, and/or progenitor cells.
However, there have also been (failed) attempts at the federal level to prohibit such research.
More generally, one might look into rulings on acts which are preludes to any form of expression, such as buying paper and ink, acquiring a printing press, hiring reporters, and investigations of events by reporters – it is unlikely that the courts would uphold a law that outlaws reporters investigating crimes or political situations because that is not yet "expression". Indeed, "freedom of the press" does not just refer to the act of disseminating ideas and information. But a definitive court ruling has not been made.
answered 48 mins ago
user6726
51.1k24386
answered 48 mins ago
user6726
51.1k24386
answered 48 mins ago
user6726
51.1k24386
answered 48 mins ago
user6726
51.1k24386
51.1k24386
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is no body of constitutional law to that effect.
In part, this is because the non-constitutional tradition of academic freedom is so great.
Once research is done, publication of that research has strong academic freedom protections, but there is no real case law suggesting that the scientific inquiry itself is protected.
For example, cases regarding whether stem cell research should be permitted are not argued in a manner that raises constitutional questions.
answered 1 hour ago
ohwilleke
44.8k252113
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
There is no body of constitutional law to that effect.
In part, this is because the non-constitutional tradition of academic freedom is so great.
Once research is done, publication of that research has strong academic freedom protections, but there is no real case law suggesting that the scientific inquiry itself is protected.
For example, cases regarding whether stem cell research should be permitted are not argued in a manner that raises constitutional questions.
answered 1 hour ago
ohwilleke
44.8k252113
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
There is no body of constitutional law to that effect.
In part, this is because the non-constitutional tradition of academic freedom is so great.
Once research is done, publication of that research has strong academic freedom protections, but there is no real case law suggesting that the scientific inquiry itself is protected.
For example, cases regarding whether stem cell research should be permitted are not argued in a manner that raises constitutional questions.
answered 1 hour ago
ohwilleke
44.8k252113
There is no body of constitutional law to that effect.
In part, this is because the non-constitutional tradition of academic freedom is so great.
Once research is done, publication of that research has strong academic freedom protections, but there is no real case law suggesting that the scientific inquiry itself is protected.
For example, cases regarding whether stem cell research should be permitted are not argued in a manner that raises constitutional questions.
answered 1 hour ago
ohwilleke
44.8k252113
answered 1 hour ago
ohwilleke
44.8k252113
answered 1 hour ago
ohwilleke
44.8k252113
answered 1 hour ago
ohwilleke
44.8k252113
44.8k252113
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32822%2fis-the-right-to-engage-in-scientific-inquiry-a-fundamental-right%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password