Read the excerpt from the Majority Opinion, Justice James C. McReynolds, in Meyer v. Nebraska (1923). That the State may do much, go very far, indeed, in order to improve the quality of its citizens, physically, mentally, and morally, is clear; but the individual has certain fundamental rights which must be respected. The protection of the Constitution extends to all, to those who speak other languages as well as to those born with English on the tongue. Perhaps it would be highly advantageous if all had ready understanding of our ordinary speech, but this cannot be coerced by methods which conflict with the Constitution. . . . No emergency has arisen which rendered knowledge by a child of some language other than English so clearly harmful as to justify its inhibition with the consequent infringement of rights long freely enjoyed. How does the decision in Meyer v. Nebraska expand the definition of liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?

The decision in Meyer v. Nebraska expands the definition of liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment quote << No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. >>

Explanation:

Robert Meyer was a parochial school teacher in Hamilton County, Nebraska, who taught a Bible story in German to a 10 year old pupil. He was found guilty of violating a 1919 statute that mandated English-only instruction in all public and private schools.

The Nebraska Supreme Court started a trial to judge him, but the The U.S. Supreme Court rejected their reasoning in a seven-to-two decision.

Justice James C. McReynolds delivered the majority opinion on June 4th, 1923; stating: that liberty of the amendment also stands for teaching and liberty should not be interfered without any reasonable purpose; elucidating that the acquisition of knowledge should be promoted and that the mere knowledge of the German language couldn't be reasonably be regarded as harmful but - in Mc Reynold's words - “ helpful ” and “ desirable ”.

The U.S. Supreme Court also disclosed that the Legislature had attempted to interfere with the opportunity of pupils to acquire knowledge and the right of modern language teachers to instruct, clarifyng that the large foreign born population and foreign communities often include foreign words in their vocabularies, reminding that all individuals have << Certain fundamental rights which must be respected >> and manifesting their concern with the prohibition approved by the Nebraska Supreme Court, pointing out that the unfortunate experiences in the latewar created an aversion of truculent adversaries that clearly inspired to exceed the limitations and guarantees settled and expressed in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. of rights long freely enjoyed.

To conclude, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that there was no adequate foundation for the suggestion that the purpose was to protect the child's health and that there was no reason implied in this matter to limit his mental activities, since earlier experience showed that learning a foreign language could not by any means represent a threat of be injurious to the health, morals or understanding of a child.

I hope it helps!

annyksl annyksl · Answer 2 · 2020-04-27T04:32:12+02:00

Answer:

It expands that freedom must be respected regardless of people's nationality and language.

Explanation:

The Fourteenth Amendment reinforced the need to offer citizenship and equal rights to slaves freed after the civil war. In summary, we can say that this amendment reinforces the concept of freedom that must be respected by every American citizen.

The case shown in the question above, extends this concept to non-American citizens, since it is not correct to withdraw the rights, equality and freedom of individuals with other nationalities and who speak a different language.