Background- Interracial couple get married in the District of Columbia, and then they returned to Virginia. Couple tried with violation of the law in Virginia against interracial couples. Then they were found guilty and sent to both spend a year in jail.
Issue- Does the Virginia law against interracial marriages violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?
Decision- 9-0 in favor of Loving
Opinion- I believe the law was unconstitutional as well according to the equal protection clause because not only did this law cause direct discrimination but it applied to the general public and was not on an individual basis. When the law is applied to the "Rational Purpose Test" is comes no where near to passing. Freedom to marry is a fundamental right given to both blacks and whites by the constitution.
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Gonzales v Carhart
Gonzales v Carhart
Background- 2003 President Bush signed Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Carhart, a doctor among others who preformed late term abortions, sued to stop the act from going into affect. They claim it was unconstitutional due to the "undue burden" on the right to abortion. They also claim that the act was to broad towards what kinds of abortions and towards what conditions an abortion is legal.
Issue- Is this Act a constitutional violation towards personal liberty under the fifth amendment and are abortions necessary to protect the mothers health?
Decision- 5 to 4 in favor of Gonzales
Opinion- I believe the act was constitutionally vague/ unconstitutional because it didn't specify under what circumstances an abortion could be preformed, and that no type of abortion that is banned can be inferred. According to Stenberg v. Carhart even though abortions are never medically necessary they are still legal.
Background- 2003 President Bush signed Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Carhart, a doctor among others who preformed late term abortions, sued to stop the act from going into affect. They claim it was unconstitutional due to the "undue burden" on the right to abortion. They also claim that the act was to broad towards what kinds of abortions and towards what conditions an abortion is legal.
Issue- Is this Act a constitutional violation towards personal liberty under the fifth amendment and are abortions necessary to protect the mothers health?
Decision- 5 to 4 in favor of Gonzales
Opinion- I believe the act was constitutionally vague/ unconstitutional because it didn't specify under what circumstances an abortion could be preformed, and that no type of abortion that is banned can be inferred. According to Stenberg v. Carhart even though abortions are never medically necessary they are still legal.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Atkins v Virginia
Background- Jones and Atkins (18 years old) both on the night of August 16, 1996 around midnight abducted Eric Nesbitt. They stole over $200 and after taking Nesbitt to an isolated location shot him repeatedly. When taken into custody, the men's stories were both different and the shooter wasn't confirmed. Until, Atkins cell mate, to whom Atkins confessed to about shooting Nesbitt, told the police. Jones testified for a life sentence against Atkins. Atkins was sentenced to death.
Issue- Can mentally retarded people be candidate for the death penalty, or is it cruel and unusual?
Decision- 6 Atkins, 3 against. Execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual according to the evolving standards of decency; therefore, making that punishment excessive.
In my opinion I think that the death penalty should be ordered according to the crime and if the person is an extreme danger to the public. It should not be based on if a person is mentally ill or not because all people have enough power to take a life or multiple. This ability though is only used by murderers or people in self defense and it is a consious decision that even the mentally retarded people have an ability to make. Coker v Georgia and Enmund v Florida both state that certain crimes that are committed are not probable cause for the death penalty but none of them address ones state of mind; therefore, it is not unconstitutional because it is not excessive according to the crime.
Issue- Can mentally retarded people be candidate for the death penalty, or is it cruel and unusual?
Decision- 6 Atkins, 3 against. Execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual according to the evolving standards of decency; therefore, making that punishment excessive.
In my opinion I think that the death penalty should be ordered according to the crime and if the person is an extreme danger to the public. It should not be based on if a person is mentally ill or not because all people have enough power to take a life or multiple. This ability though is only used by murderers or people in self defense and it is a consious decision that even the mentally retarded people have an ability to make. Coker v Georgia and Enmund v Florida both state that certain crimes that are committed are not probable cause for the death penalty but none of them address ones state of mind; therefore, it is not unconstitutional because it is not excessive according to the crime.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Gideon v. Wainwright
Background- Throughout history the Supreme Court looked at how the absence of counsel affected one's right to due process law and a fair trial.
A burglary at a Pool Room occurred and later that day Gideon was accused by an eye witness then taken into police custody soley on the basis of the eye witness. Gideon was to poor to afford counsel to defend him in court, but the court ended up denying his claim to counsel. Forced to represent himself, he lost the case and was found guilty. Later Gideon appealed to the supreme court suing against a secretary in Florida.
Issue- Do the constitution give ALL people the right to counsel no matter the circumstances; furthermore, does the absence affect how a jury may rule?
Decision- 6 to 3 in favor of Gideon
M-Black, Warren, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg
D-Clark, Douglas, Harlan
My opinion is that they were right to be in favor or Gideon and overturn the ruling on Betts v. Brady because if only some cases are allowed to be appointed counsel then that denies a fair trial to the others who are rejected counsel. No matter what when counsel is present and innocent person has the ability to be supported. Not all people can have a fair chance of winning a case if they do not know how to represent themselves because of lack of knowledge of the court system, not knowing how to show evidence during trial, etc. When represented each accused person has a better chance at finding a verdict fairly.
Background- Throughout history the Supreme Court looked at how the absence of counsel affected one's right to due process law and a fair trial.
A burglary at a Pool Room occurred and later that day Gideon was accused by an eye witness then taken into police custody soley on the basis of the eye witness. Gideon was to poor to afford counsel to defend him in court, but the court ended up denying his claim to counsel. Forced to represent himself, he lost the case and was found guilty. Later Gideon appealed to the supreme court suing against a secretary in Florida.
Issue- Do the constitution give ALL people the right to counsel no matter the circumstances; furthermore, does the absence affect how a jury may rule?
Decision- 6 to 3 in favor of Gideon
M-Black, Warren, Brennan, Stewart, White, Goldberg
D-Clark, Douglas, Harlan
My opinion is that they were right to be in favor or Gideon and overturn the ruling on Betts v. Brady because if only some cases are allowed to be appointed counsel then that denies a fair trial to the others who are rejected counsel. No matter what when counsel is present and innocent person has the ability to be supported. Not all people can have a fair chance of winning a case if they do not know how to represent themselves because of lack of knowledge of the court system, not knowing how to show evidence during trial, etc. When represented each accused person has a better chance at finding a verdict fairly.
Friday, March 15, 2013
Kyllo vs. U.S.
Background- Police officers wanted to use a thermal device to scan a house that was suspected of growing weed. They wanted to use this to get evidence for a search warrant to physically search the house. After they noticed that there was unusual heat radiating throughout certain parts of his house, they were able to get a warrant for the inside. Kyllo claimed that this evidence was invalid because It violated his fourth amendment rights.
Issue- Does the fourth amendement protect someones property not only on the inside but the outside as well?
Decision- 5 to 4 decision that the police were allowed to use thermal imaging to allow a search. But the fact that they did not have a warrant to use the thermal device was unconstitutional. These devices still intrude in one's privacy because they are scanning the home itself which is their private property.
Opinion- If one has any evidence at all that a person has commit a serious felony than that should give the police the opportunity to be able to find more evidence, which includes thermal imaging or any other new technology that can be used to gather evidence. Because they are not physically in the home ultimately these people's privacy is not, on a personal level, being violated.
Background- Police officers wanted to use a thermal device to scan a house that was suspected of growing weed. They wanted to use this to get evidence for a search warrant to physically search the house. After they noticed that there was unusual heat radiating throughout certain parts of his house, they were able to get a warrant for the inside. Kyllo claimed that this evidence was invalid because It violated his fourth amendment rights.
Issue- Does the fourth amendement protect someones property not only on the inside but the outside as well?
Decision- 5 to 4 decision that the police were allowed to use thermal imaging to allow a search. But the fact that they did not have a warrant to use the thermal device was unconstitutional. These devices still intrude in one's privacy because they are scanning the home itself which is their private property.
Opinion- If one has any evidence at all that a person has commit a serious felony than that should give the police the opportunity to be able to find more evidence, which includes thermal imaging or any other new technology that can be used to gather evidence. Because they are not physically in the home ultimately these people's privacy is not, on a personal level, being violated.
Thursday, March 7, 2013
District of Columbia v. Heller
Background-
Heller applied for an hand gun permit but was denied. They stated that the second amendment gave citizens the right to own these guns given that they would be used for self defense and hunting purposes. This allowed citizens to be able to participate in militias so that the people (non gov) would be given a reasonable amount of power to eliminate a potential tyrannical government. This case also helped to decide whether the individual had the right to carry a fire arm for personal self defense instead of just militias. Determined that hand guns are considered "arms" so the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional.
Issue-
Can the second amendment be regulated to prevent individuals from owning certain "arms". If regulated does it violate the natural right to self defense. Is the people that the second amendment refers to the same as other amendments?
Decision-
5-4 in favor of Heller
M-The right to own guns outside of a militia is legal if used for a lawful purpose , further more the right to own handguns is also protected because it is considered an "arm".
D-Individual right only given if apart of a well regulated state militia. Not for other purposes even if they are lawful.
Opinion-
I'm in favor of Heller because people are given the right to self defense even if they are not in a regulated state militia; therefore, if they wish to own a gun than they can legally receive one. And the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is indeed unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd amendment right to bare arms. This act regulated the amendment and prevented people from being to to protect themselves with firearms. This is later used to help the Mcdonald v. Chicago case in figuring if the second amendment applies to the states.
Background-
Heller applied for an hand gun permit but was denied. They stated that the second amendment gave citizens the right to own these guns given that they would be used for self defense and hunting purposes. This allowed citizens to be able to participate in militias so that the people (non gov) would be given a reasonable amount of power to eliminate a potential tyrannical government. This case also helped to decide whether the individual had the right to carry a fire arm for personal self defense instead of just militias. Determined that hand guns are considered "arms" so the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional.
Issue-
Can the second amendment be regulated to prevent individuals from owning certain "arms". If regulated does it violate the natural right to self defense. Is the people that the second amendment refers to the same as other amendments?
Decision-
5-4 in favor of Heller
M-The right to own guns outside of a militia is legal if used for a lawful purpose , further more the right to own handguns is also protected because it is considered an "arm".
D-Individual right only given if apart of a well regulated state militia. Not for other purposes even if they are lawful.
Opinion-
I'm in favor of Heller because people are given the right to self defense even if they are not in a regulated state militia; therefore, if they wish to own a gun than they can legally receive one. And the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is indeed unconstitutional because it violates the 2nd amendment right to bare arms. This act regulated the amendment and prevented people from being to to protect themselves with firearms. This is later used to help the Mcdonald v. Chicago case in figuring if the second amendment applies to the states.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)