The court appealed this case because although the reason to challenge the Supreme Court was in the case of defying the Sixth Amendment. The court stated the Sixth Amendment was to make a defendant’s testimony admissible on behalf of the court he or she is being tried at. The reason the Supreme Court appealed this case was because although, the state of Arkansas and other states have used and allowed the testimonies of hypnosis to be admissible in the court, they felt it was an inaccurate way for the defendant to regain memory. Although, the hypnosis did allow Rock to recollect memories, which happened at the death of her husband, the doctor did not lead the interview with direct questions. This then allowed the court to rule the evidence inadmissible because of some of the arbitrary questions asked by Dr.
When telling the audience of the anti-abortion law, which got struck down by the Supreme Court, the board says that it is a “significant victory” clearly displaying their view on abortion right away. The word “significant” makes the audience believe that it was a good thing that the law got overturned. Moreover, the board mentions that the law was a “dishonest anti-abortion law.” This makes the audience not trust the state of Texas and their beliefs about pro-life because of the word “dishonest”. Dishonesty brings a bad connotation in which the audience will be persuaded away from Texas’ anti-abortion laws and towards the board’s beliefs on abortion and pro-choice. Lastly, the board speaks of the overturning of the law and how this decision to overturn it was “unquestionably correct.” The board specifically picked “unquestionably” in order to persuade the audience to believe that, with out of a doubt, the decision the Supreme Court made was the right choice.
What the church didn 't want known was that Joseph Smith was a user of alcohol and tobacco, but the church left out this fact so that members would look more favorably on him. Finally, the church used a false account called The Testament of the Three Witnesses to legitimize the creation of The Book of Mormon. At the beginning of almost every copy of the Book of Mormon there is a testimony from three people, Oliver Cowdery, Martin Harris, and David Whitmer. The testimony quotes these people as having seen the golden plates, used to translate the original Book of Mormon. Later these men were excommunicated and revealed that they had lied in the testimony.
The people who are against immigration want it to get rid of it or they want it to be extremely limited in our country. One person who talked about how limiting immigration and stopping people from coming to the United States is a good change for us is David Goldman. In his article “President Trumps Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right” Goldman says that Trumps 90-day travel ban is “callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks.” (Paragraph 3). Being against immigration because of the fear or extra crime and terrorism seems to be one of the main reasons for people in the United States to be against it. In the last election it was one of President Trumps main areas of focus.
As GAO found that the government, including watchdog agencies such as BBS Wise Giving Alliance and Charity Watchdog, do not have a regular and external evaluations on Red Cross’s services and performance, thus it recommends the congress to institute a legislation regarding this. In response, Representative Bennie Thompson from Mississippi has created a bill to audit the finances, disaster response, and services outside the country of the organization. Thompson has stated in the interview that there’s no full cooperation from Red Cross when GAO has conducted its first investigation or inquiry and they did not permit GAO with “unconstrained access” after several requests of significant information. He also mentioned that McGovern tried to have Thompson stop GAO’s inquiry. These have created more suspicions and doubts toward Red Cross.
It makes me wonder the same thing about the judges, the lawyers, the Supreme Court and even the government itself. Who said we wanted this type of government and it was the best solution? Which brings us back to the question, “Are prisons obsolete?” When I read Angela Davis’ book, Are Prisons Obsolete? , I was scared that it actually was, only because it is not fair to the workers (to an extent). It is cruel to have someone work for you under harsh conditions, even if it is a criminal.
Wenk. There were some veterans who went to Kings Mall and were petitioning because they were not happy with the involvement that the United States had in the Iraq war. The mall then sued the veterans for trespassing and brought them to court. The Appellate Division had ruled in favor for the plaintiff, Kings Mall. The State Supreme Court was said to be wrong for limiting the defendant’s freedom of speech and petition, but they said that the Supreme Court could limit speech more than “necessary to serve a significant government interest.” This case clashes with freedom of speech, but it is also about freedom to
The United States Supreme Court addressed part of this issue with their decision of Missouri v. Frye. In this case, the respondent’s attorney failed to inform him about two potential plea deals; a factor which the Court decided was a violation of Frye’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel (Missouri v. Frye, 2012). By making this decision, the Supreme Court is giving the defendants a significant amount of leverage. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates to an unprecedented amount of power on the part of the defense. It gives defendants grounds for suit not only when they are not told about a potential deal, but also when an attorney advises against taking a deal.
Discrimination in voting, is not just limited to the southern states. Lawmakers in Ohio and Wisconsin, for example, have gone to great lengths to complicate voting for minorities (Rosenthal, 2016). It did not take long for these ridiculous laws to be passed. Some agree that having section 5 in the voting rights act is unconstitutional. Preclearance was a constitutional response to voter discrimination, but it was also unconstitutional to apply it to states based on past issues (Sensenbrenner, 2016).
Living in this beautiful country I have come to realize that our government feels as if they need to make up for our past political parties mistakes. Although they had good intentions, it has only made it harder only the majority of the population. America is unknowingly judgmental towards any select person that has a belief or opinion that is not supported at the current time. As an example people have seen the harsh behavior gay people have faced over the last hundred years so they decided to make their beliefs the most important.