Landmark Case Assignment
Sorry for the chaos lately. I knew there was a good reason why AP classes are recommended to be year long instead of semesters...too little time and too much content.
Anyhow here is your task! Concisely and limited to the facts, respond with the 3 parts to your assignment on Supreme Court cases. A - the background to the case (who, where, when, what happened). B - what part of the Constitution does the case deal with (Be specific! If it deals with the Constitution itself - what Article, what clause. If it deals with an Amendment - what number, what part. eg Article 1 Section 8 Necessary and Proper Clause. Amendment 8 Cruel and unusual punishment. C What did the court rule and if you can come up with the exact vote (eg. 5-4) great. Up to 10 points for the first 28 entries.
Mr. Thompson
posted by erdecker @ 4:41 PM
32 comments
32 Comments:
Marbury vs. Madison
My case is the Marbury Vs. Madison case of 1803. Marbury had been commissioned as the Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by the lame-duck president John Adams. When James Madison took over office, he decided that they would not deliver the commission to Marbuy, so in turn, he sued the Madison.
This case deals with the U.S. Const. art. III, Section 2 Clause 2
John Marshall was the current chief justice, and along with the rest of the supreme court, they ruled by a Unanimous decision (4-0) that Marbury had the right to his commission, but the court did not have the authority to make Madison deliver commission.
A- President Nixon had possession of tapes of recorded conversations from the Watergate Hotel and between his and his advisors and h wouldnt turn them over claming he had executive privilege.
B-It was ruled "separation of powers" by the supreme court. Article 2
C-Unanimous 9-0 vote that Nixon had to turn over the tapes
happy "cold" day
oh that was U.S. v Nixon
Schenck v. United States (1919)
Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America, who believed that the war was caused by and would benefit the rich, while causing suffering and death for thousands of poor and working-class soldiers doing the actual fighting in Europe. Schenck participated in antiwar activities in violation of the Espionage Act (stating “false” statements interfering with the war effort), including the mailing of about 15,000 leaflets urging draftees and soldiers to resist the draft.
First Amendment, Right of Free Speech
The Court's unanimous (9-0) decision upheld Schenck's conviction, declaring the Act a reasonable and acceptable limitation on speech in time of war. This case is the first significant exploration of the limits of 1st Amendment's free speech. Its clarifications on the meaning of free speech have been modified, rewritten, and extended.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988.
A School sponsored newspaper was edited by Robert E. Reynolds the school principal. One article about 3 teen pregnancies in the school was removed because of sexual content, the mention of use or no use of birthcontrol, and the privacy of the students (the names were changed but it was still easy to tell who they were). The other article deleted was about a student's parent's divorce, she had said things like her father not being there and the principal was worried the father would be angry with it's publication.
Deals with the 1st amendment. By deleting these articles was the principal violating the student's rights to freedom of speech?
No. the decision was 5-3. They ruled that this amendment did not require schools to promote particular types of student speech. "Educators did not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the content of student speech so long as their actions were 'reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns'". http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_836/
(Sarah Anderson)
Miranda vs. Arizona
A. A kidnapping and sexual assault occurred in Phoenix, Arizona, in March 1963.Ernesto Miranda was arrested,and taken to the police station, id. by the victim, and taken into an interrogation room. Miranda was not told of his rights to counsel prior to questioning. Later, investigators emerged from the room with a written confession signed by Miranda. It included a typed disclaimer, also signed, stating that he had “full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me,” and that he had knowingly waived those rights.At a preliminary hearing, Miranda again was denied counsel. At his trial he did have a lawyer, whose objections to the use of Miranda's signed confession as evidence were overruled. Meaning, His confession was illegally obtained and should be thrown out. His conviction was faulty, and he deserved a new trial.
B. The police violated Miranda's 5th Amendment-right to remain silent, and his 6th Amendment-right to legal counsel.
C. By a 5-4 margin, the Court voted to overturn Miranda's conviction. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Warren declared that the burden is upon the State to demonstrate that “procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination”. And measure the case against the “fundamental fairness”.
Danielle Humphrey
Tinker vs. Des Moines School District 1969
Background: After attending a community meeting that decided to wear black armbands protesting Vietnam policies, 3 students wore the armbands to school. The principles heard about the meeting, and banned to wear of the bands in school. The 3 students who wore the armbands were suspended...and they took the case to court, eventually ending up in the supreme court.
Constitution: First amendment, right to free speech
Decision: Supreme Court ruled that the principles first needed a constitutionally valid reason to make a rule. i.e. they needed some valid reason for regulating free speech. The court ruled that the bands caused no disruption, so the students were protected in their right to free speech.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O.
New Jersey High school freshmen TLO was caught smoking in the bathroom in 1984. While smoking in the school was allowed, it was to be done in certain designated areas. When confronted by her principal, Theodore Choplick, she denied the fact. He searched her purse for the cigarettes, but also discovered. Believing he held probable cause, he searched further and found marijuana, as well as letters implicating TLO in drug dealing.
Amendment 4: Search and seizure. Should school officials have the right to search student's properties with probable cause?
Yes. Supreme Court Justice White and his court ruled 6-3 that with probable cause, school's have the right to protect their environment by searching properties. The two criteria they judge by: was the search justified at inception, and was the search reasonably conducted.
Gregg vs. Georgia – 1976
A. Petitioner Troy Gregg was charged with committing armed robbery and murder with evidence that he had killed and robbed two men, Fred Simmons and Bob Moore, on November 21, 1973.
B. 8th Amendment- Cruel and Unusual Punishment
14th Amendment- Due Process, Equal Protection
C. The jury returned verdicts of death on each count and found the petitioner guilty of two counts of armed robbery and two counts of murder. Troy Gregg was sentenced to death.
The significance in this case is whether the death penalty for murder, under the law of Georgia, violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The judicial subjects felt that the sentence given was not cruel or unusual punishment, and that the petitioner was granted a fair trial.
Katz vs. United States
A- A man name Charles Katz was convicted for illegal gambling in CA. The reason he was convicted was because he used a pay phone to make bets in Miami and Boston. The FBI listened in to the conversation and used it as evidence in court. Katz argued he was protected by the 4th amendment
B-Fourth Amendment
C-Court ruled 7-1 (1 did not vote) in favor of Katz and concluded that law enforcement needs a warrant to tap into a phone conversation.
A - On June 10th, 1993, Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown were stopped in their vehicle by plainclothes police officers for a minor traffic violation in Washington, D.C. Upon approaching the driver's window, one officer saw two bags of crack cocaine in Whren's hands. Whren and Brown were charged with a four count indictment with violating various federal drug laws. (The trial took place in 1996)
B - Amendment 4, Probable cause/reasonable suspicion for search and seizures
C - The Supreme Court voted unanimously 9-0 that the drugs could be used as evidence in court and Whren and Brown were convicted. This case gave law enforcement officers more of a sense of security on the job because they don't have to worry as much about getting in trouble for a search and seizure without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
[STEPHEN HANDLON]
THE CASE: FURMAN V GEORGIA [1972]
In 1972, a man named Furman burlgarized a private home and ended up killing one of the residents. He was given death penaly. The system in place gave juries broad discretion when deciding whether or not to impose the death penalty.
The Suprememe Court Struck ruled the decision violated the "curel and unusual punishment" clause in the 8th Amendment of the Constitution. and invalidated the death penalty as it was used.
The decision forced state and national legislators to rethink capitol punishment.
United States vs. Eichman-1990
BACKGROUND- The defendants in Eichman; Shawn Eichman, Dave Blalock and Scott Tyler had burned American flags on the steps of the United States Capitol to protest American foreign and domestic policy. Their case was argued on May 14, 1990. They were prosecuted under the Flag Protection Act but they argued that it violated the First Amendment- Freedom of Religion, Press, and Expression. In a 5-4 vote the Court ruled that flag burning was a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.
New York Times Co. vs. United States
A - Known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing papers belonging to a highly classified study of US activity in Veitnam. President Nixon claimed executive privilege regarding the information, but the New York Times and Washington Post thought they had the right to publish the information according to the First Amendment.
B - First Amendment (Freedom of the Press).
C - The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the New York Times. They decided that the First Amendment held superiority over executive privilege.
Webster vs. Reproductive Health Services
Webster vs. RHS reached the Supreme Court in 1989 after the questioned laws in the state of Missouri had been struck down in previous courts. The case was about a statute that limited and restricted abortions because they believed that human lives began at conception, and the fetus was due the same rights as any citizen. Generally it made prohibitions like no abortion if viable, only if mother is in danger, ect.
The Fourteenth Amendment' definition of citizenship and the due process clause is the related law.
The court overturned the lower court’s decision in a 5 to 4 vote. It held that the limitations had not been applied for the purposes of restricting abortions, and did not present a constitutional question. That the Due Process Clause didn't require states to enter into the business of abortion, and didn't create an affirmative right to governmental aid in the pursuit of constitutional rights. Viability testing requirements, that the State's interest in protecting potential life could come before viability.
[Suzy Kent]
Jaffee vs. Redmond
A. Police officer Mary Lu Redmond responded to a fight-in-progress call on June 27, 1991. According to Redmond, Ricky Allen burst from an apartment building chasing another man with a butcher knife. Allen disregarded her repeated commands to drop the knife. Believing Allen was going to stab the man he was chasing, Redmond fatally shot him. Petitioner (the administrator of the estate of Ricky Allen) learned during pretrial discovery that subsequent to the shooting incident, that Redmond had obtained counseling from Karen Beyer, a licensed clinical social worker. Petitioner sought access to notes from the counseling sessions, but met with vigorous resistance from respondents, who argued the conversations between Redmond and Beyer were protected under a psychotherapist-patient privilege.
B. The fundamental right to privacy, guaranteed by the Fifth(Bill of Rights) and Fourteenth(section 1) Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, protects against unwarranted invasions of privacy by federal or state entities, or arms thereof.
C. In a 7-2 decision in June 1996, the Supreme Court rejected the effort to obtain the notes and established a psychotherapist-patient privilege(Rule 501) that protects this type of communication from compelled disclosure in federal court. On June 13, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court established the psychotherapist-patient privilege in the Federal Courts.
[Suzy Kent]
forgot to include the state
A. Illinois
[Gitlow vs. New York -1925]
A: Benjamin Gitlow, a member of a radical faction (left wing section) of the Socialist Party, was charged with violating the New York State Criminal Anarchy Act of 1902 for writing and distributing pamphlets on "The Revolutionary Age" and the "Left Wing Manifesto" which made it a crime to advocate the violent overthrow of the government. He was also charged with being an “evil disposed and pernicious person,” with a “wicked and turbulent disposition,” who tried to “excite discontent and disaffection.”
B: First Amendment - specifically freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
C: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gitlow by a vote of 7 to 2. They stated in their decision that "for present purposes, we may assume that freedom of speech and of press...are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the State."
A-
WHO: WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION vs. BARNETTE
What: West Virginia required both students and teachers to participate in saluting the flag during exercises at the beginning of each school day as part of a standard school curriculum. (rights in school/pledge of allegiance)
Failure on the part of anyone to comply meant expulsion - and in such a case the student was considered illegally absent until they were allowed back.
Where: West Virginia; case was in washington dc
When: Argued March 11, 1943.
Decided June 14, 1943.
Why: A group of Jehovah's Witness families refused to salute the flag because it represented a graven image they could not acknowledge in their religion.
B- They filed suit to challenge the cirriculum as a violation of their religious liberties. (Violated the first amendment -freedom of religion)
C- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the school district violated the rights of students by forcing them to salute the American flag.
Plessy v. Ferguson
A
The arrest of Homer Plessy on June 7, 1892, was part of a planned challenge to the 1890 Louisiana Separate Car Act by the Citizens' Committee to test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law. They were testing the constitutionality of segregation on railroad cars operating solely within a single state. The committee’s strategy was to have someone with mixed blood violate the law. Homer Plessy, a native of south Louisiana who could "pass" as white, agreed to be the test case.
B. Fourteenth Amendment- equal protection clause
Thirteenth Amendment- segregation is essentially feature of slavery (involuntary servitude)
C. Eight of the nine justices ruled that the Louisiana Separate Car Act did not violate the constitution.
Escobedo vs. Illinois: Michaela Antolak
Background: Danny Escobedo was arrested for his brother-in-law's murder after Benedict DiGerlando implicated him in the crime. Escobedo asked for an attorney, but his attorney was denied access to him. Escobedo implicated himself in the murder and later confessed the same to a prosecuting attorney.
Part of Constitution: Sixth Amendment- Right to legal counsel.
Courts Decision: The Supreme Court overturned Escobedo's conviction and recognized a suspect's right to an attorney during police interrogation.
So I'm not entirely sure if we were assigned Supreme Court cases, but I just picked one.
Mapp v. Ohio
A)In 1957, police in Cleveland, Ohio recieved information that a bombing suspect and illegal betting equipment could be found in Dollree Mapp's home. Mapp refused to let the police in without a warrant. They came back hours later, broke down the door, and refused to show Mapp the 'warrant.' They found pornographic material in Mapp's home and convicted her of the posession of those materials. No search warrant was presented at her trial.
B)The case deals with the 4th Amendment protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
C) The court ruled (6-3) that the conviction be overturned and that States cannot include evidence that is seized in violation with the 4th Amendment.
Reynolds vs. Sims (1964)
M.O. Sims and other voters, as Alabama residents, challenged the seemingly disproportionate state legislature representation. In Alabama, each county had, at minimum, 1 rep. in the Senate. There were as many senatorial districts as there were senators, leaving the ratio of population to senator 41-1 in the Senate.
Alabama's apportionment was proposed to have violated the 14th Amendment, specifically, the Equal Protection Clause.
The Court upheld the challenge in an 8-1 decision because the = Protection Clause states that "no less than substantially equal state legislative representation for all citizens..." wasn't to be tolerated. Both the House of Rep.'s and each house of the state legislature must now follow the rule of "one person, one vote" and create election districts roughly = in population.
California v. Greenwood
1988
Greenwood was allegedly involved in a narcotics operation, police needed evidence for warrant, took garbage and found evidence of narcotics, got warrant, invaded house and arrested. Greenwood said garbage was his private property.
Deals with 4th amendment: search and seizure
Court ruled 6-2 (one justice didn't vote) against Greenwood
alright well apparently my original didn't post so.
Reno vs. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
A: Attorney General at the time, Janet Reno prosecuted the ACLU so that pornography could be put on the internet. The ACLU was banning any from being placed on the internet because it didn't want kids to see "sexual or excretory activities or organs."
B: They defined this as a fight for free speech, Article number one.
C: it was Unanimous 9-0, people need to be entertained... Oh two justices concurred in part and dissented in part.
Brown Vs. Board of Education
A-Linda Brown had to cross all of Topeka Kansas to go to school while all her white friends were allowed to go to a school just a few blocks away. Her parents sued the system saying that it wasn't equal that their Eight year old daughter had to go to school so far away. This would be the 13th case put against the Kansas school system. They fought, along with many more families, with the help of the NAACP, for the desegration of public schools.
B-14th Amendment, Section one: Equal Protection Clause
C- Ruled Unanimously to end racial segregation in Public schools.
Interesting fact: The case was fought by Thurgood Marshall at the supreme Court, and Thurgood Marshall became the first black judge on the Supreme Court Justice.
McCulloch vs Maryland
A:Maryland tried to make an example by imposing a tax on all banks that were not chartered by the state. When one bank refused to pay they took it to court where John Marshall explained that the chartering of a bank is an implied powere intended for the federal courts, thus the tax was deemed unconstitutional
B:Article IV's National Supremacy Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, Article I, Section 8
C:(7-0) voted that the tax was unconstitutional and thus rejected the argument
Engel vs. School Board (Vitale)
School Prayer
“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.”
A- In New York a public school district allowed time for the "Regents Prayer" to be recited each morning, it was thought to create great character among the students. Deals with the separation of church and state. Engel represented the parents and said that this prayer violated the 1st ammend.
B- Violated the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammend.
C- Was found unconstitutional with a 6-1 majority.
Gideon vs. Wainwright
Background: In the early morning hours of June 3, 1961, a burgarly took place at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Someone claimed to have witnessed Clarence Gideon leaving the pool room around 5:30AM. On this alone, he was arrested for breaking and entering. He couldn't afford a lawyer and the State refused to give him one because he wasn't faced with the death penalty. He defended himself and lost. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison. He appealed to the Supreme Court.
Ruling: Gideon won. He was retried with a lawyer and was acquitted.
Impact: Today, all defendents must have a lawyer if they want to have one, no matter what sentence they face.
In 1970, attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington filed suit in a U.S. District Court in Texas on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey ("Jane Roe"). McCorvey claimed her pregnancy was the result of rape.[4][5] The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas.
The court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7 to 2 majority voting to strike down Texas abortion laws.
To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.
longchamp outlet, louboutin shoes, ray ban sunglasses, kate spade outlet, longchamp, louboutin pas cher, longchamp pas cher, tiffany and co, gucci outlet, nike air max, nike air max, nike free, uggs on sale, air jordan pas cher, louis vuitton outlet, ray ban sunglasses, tiffany jewelry, louboutin outlet, oakley sunglasses, chanel handbags, louis vuitton outlet, prada handbags, ugg boots, nike roshe run, polo ralph lauren outlet, oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, air max, nike free, burberry, louboutin, ralph lauren pas cher, ray ban sunglasses, ugg boots, christian louboutin outlet, replica watches, louis vuitton, tory burch outlet, prada outlet, replica watches, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton, michael kors, cheap oakley sunglasses, oakley sunglasses, longchamp outlet, jordan shoes, louis vuitton, sac longchamp, nike outlet
hollister, chi flat iron, nike air max, reebok shoes, mont blanc, ghd, converse, soccer jerseys, nfl jerseys, abercrombie and fitch, wedding dresses, asics running shoes, insanity workout, longchamp, nike huarache, mcm handbags, timberland boots, p90x workout, north face outlet, hollister, nike air max, baseball bats, converse outlet, lululemon, ralph lauren, vans shoes, instyler, gucci, bottega veneta, mac cosmetics, beats by dre, new balance, babyliss, nike roshe, jimmy choo shoes, north face outlet, herve leger, vans, hollister, louboutin, iphone cases, ray ban, celine handbags, giuseppe zanotti, valentino shoes, birkin bag, soccer shoes, ferragamo shoes, oakley, nike trainers
Post a Comment
<< Home