And Frisk Practices Unconstitutional, Racially Discriminatory

Justice William Douglas stated that the sterilization of habitual offenders had no defined correlation to them procreating offenders. In addition, Justice Douglas argued that this act was also a form of discrimination that targeted minority groups unlawfully. In an argument concurrently with Justice Douglas, Justice Stone argued that the act was in violation of due process because it didn’t have a hearing on merely the basis of whether criminal traits are inheritable, specifically in Skinner’s

Mohammad Haneef & Erosion of Civil Liberties Weland La ‘Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties.’ Discuss this statement in light of the Haneef Case and one other issue (such as the right to silence, privacy, etc.), commenting on the extent to which the law balances the rights of the individual with the needs for community safety. In correlation with the Haneef Case, Australia’s laws are severely eroding civil liberties as demonstrated by NSW’s introduction of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013.

The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was very controversial. It changed how handle evidence and forced police officers to take special precautions when obtaining evidence. In the case of Mapp, Mapp 's attorneys argued that the obscene material found in Mapp’s house had been unlawfully seized and should not be allowed as evidence. Prior to Mapp’s trial the Supreme Court had ruled in Weeks vs the United States that illegally obtained evidence was not permissible in Federal Court. But did this same principle apply to states?

Dr. Timothy Quill and three other terminally ill patients filed a case against the Attorney General of New York State claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clauses. The New York State law allowed discontinuation of life-saving treatment for a competent person who was terminally ill, however, it imposed a ban on physician assisted suicide. The district court did not agree but the Court of Appeals reversed stating that they were moreover similar things and the ban was an unequal treatment. The Supreme Court granted a certiorari. Issue: There is a clear distinction between refusing a life-saving treatment and physician assisted suicide, does the terminally ill patients vies this distinction as an operating violation of Equal Protection Clause?

C. Precedent The law is unconstitutional not only due to the meaning of the text itself, but also from many cases of precedent. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) have already established the importance of the Second Amendment, but there are other cases as well that back up the courts decision claiming the ban on carrying a concealed weapon is unconstitutional. In Bliss v. Commonwealth, 2 Litt. 90, (KY 1822), established that the right to bear arms was for defense against themselves and the state. This case consisted of a man carrying a concealed weapon in his cane and it is similar to the one in which we face today.

In the article, “Feds fault San Francisco police for violence against minorities and recommend 272 reforms”, James Queally and Joe Mozingo addresses the abusive mentality police have with their authority. They imply the behavior of police in some cases isn’t appropriate for someone who is suppose to serve and protect. They include LAPD incidents where Investigation of police are said to use racial slurs through communication of text amongst themselves when referring to Blacks, Latinos and people of middle eastern descent. Ultimately what Queally and Mozingo are trying to get at is that law enforcement abuse their power and degrade their reputation, and should be civil and not be dishonorable by being racially

41. Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Supreme Court ruling that decided that the fourth amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be extended to the states. If there is no probable cause or search warrant issued legally, the evidence found unconstitutionally will be inadmissible in the courtroom and not even considered when pressing charges. The exclusionary rule, in this case, is a right that will restrict the states and not just the federal government, including the states in more of the federal rights as outlined in the Constitution.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Homosexual Conduct law was unconstitutional and overturned the conviction of Lawrence and his male companion. The Court ruled that the law violated the Fourteenth Amendment 's Due Process Clause because it protects the right to personal liberty in intimate decisions(Lawrence vs Texas, Case Briefs). The Court argued that its decision in Bowers v. Hardwick was misguided. The issue was not the right to commit sodomy but “the right to privacy in the home" and "the right to freely engage in consensual, adult sex. "(Lawrence v Texas).

Felon disenfranchisement is not only unconstitutional but also further institutionalizes racism. For example, in communities consisting of minorities like African Americans and Hispanics felony disenfranchisement unlawfully create a disadvantage for freedom of speech. As stated by Eric H. Holder, JD a US Attorney General “although well over a century has passed since post-Reconstruction …the impact of felony disenfranchisement on modern communities of color remains both disproportionate and unacceptable.” The act of taking away someone’s right to vote notably mirrors the act of forbidding African Americans to vote during the post-Reconstruction Era. Holder refers to the fact that taking away the right to vote essentially withdraws any opinions that minorities

Racial profiling is morally wrong: I cannot stress this point enough racial profiling is morally and ethically wrong. It degrades the American psyche by treating its citizens as second class citizens. It generalizes,it paints with broad strokes that minorities are criminals and worthy of profiling. Not to mention that profiling by The United States is Hypocritical a country that promotes liberty,freedom and ideals of justice should not violate it 's citizens civil liberties,such as racial profiling does. Now,i will give a now famous example about racial profiling gone bad.

The United States Constitution Fourteenth Amendment also protects American citizens. The amendments of citizens in the U.S. make the policy unfair because it turns out to be a case of racial profiling. The fourteenth amendment states that American citizens should all have Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection. “A new report from the New York Civil Liberties Union that offers a "complete factual record of stop-and-frisk activity" in New York City between 2002 and 2013 has found that this unconstitutionally performed policing tactic was largely ineffective at reducing violent crime, a clear rebuttal to right-wing media 's frequent justifications for the practice.” (Hatcher- Mays 1) Although the stop and seizure policy data proves to be successful in one type of way; misconduct of police officers evade the protection of citizens by the U.S constitution making it unequal treatment to the people in these

The board’s decision to revoke the license was upheld by the New York courts, but later was appealed

In the article “The Statistical Debate Behind The Stop-and-Frisk Verdict”, John Cassidy analyzes the conclusion of Judge Scheindlin in which states that Stop and Frisk amounts to a policy of indirect racial profiling. In the analysis it is mentioned that Judge Scheindlin feels that the these methods of approach to prevent crime is unconstitutional. She challenges this by using the four and fourteenth amendment which police violate with stop-and-frisk which is an unreasonable search, and the discrimination towards Blacks and Latinos by being stopped a lot more frequently than whites, which is not equal protection under the law. Ultimately Cassidy’s report is to convey Judge Scheindlin’s stance on the method of policing being used today.

The electric chair, hanging, gas chambers, and death by firing squad are all unnecessarily inhumane and hence, in my personal opinion, should all be declared by the White House to be unconstitutional. According to the Preamble to the Constitution, every citizen is guaranteed the right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” and since the first few words guarantee life, the death penalty itself would, technically speaking, be unconstitutional. I aver that even a murderer may sometimes feel guilty about what he or she has done. Another reason against capital punishment as stated in, “The Innocent on Death Row,” demonstrates that sometimes even the innocent are sometimes put on death row, because Henry Lee McCollum, who was nineteen at the time he was tried, and his half-brother, Leon Brown, who was fifteen at the time he was convicted, were both convicted and sentenced to death. Ever since they were released, the death penalty was made illegal for minors and mentally handicapped

This landmark Supreme Court case clarified what is considered cruel and unusual punishment for many future verdicts to