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.
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.
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. Because of these facts, it is safe to say the Golden Plates may have never existed.
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).
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).
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.”
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.
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).
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.
The case People v. Smith was finally decided by the Supreme Court of Michigan in 1991. The case involved the defendant Ricky Franklin Smith whom pled guilty to breaking and entering and of being a habitual offender, fourth offense (People v Smith, 1991). The judge sentenced Smith to 6 to 30 years imprisonment for the Habitual Offender charge. Ricky Franklin Smith after sentencing requested to be resentenced because his juvenile record, which had been expunged, was considered by the judge for sentencing. The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed with the sentencing; however, when the case went to the Supreme Court of Michigan, they reversed the decision because the sentencing should not have been based on the defendant’s prior expunged juvenile record.
Harte- Hanks Communications v. Connaughton, which took place in 1989, focused around libel laws as well redefining the actual malice standard. Six years prior to the case, Daniel Connaughton ran for Municipal Judge of Hamilton, Ohio, losing to the incumbent James Dolan. Connaughton was ultimately unsuccessful, losing to Dolan, who was supported by JournalNews, a local Ohio paper. It later was revealed that prior to the election, a member of Dolan’s staff resigned his position and was charged with perjury, by a jury.
Patrick Henry was a young teen that lived in the dominion of Virginia when he heard Samuel Davies speak. Samuel Davies advocated the New Light, which was derived during the First Great Awakening. Patrick Henry also heard Samuel Davies speak again when he was in his late teens. What he took away from that was religious freedom, which he then later applied to politics. Those led him to more democratic thoughts, such as the idea that the people should only have to follow laws they helped to create.
From believing that the freedom of speech and press was protection against previous regulations to believing that it to be protection against unnecessary harm to the general public, Holmes changes positions between Patterson v. Colorado and Schenck v. United States. In Patterson v. Colorado, Patterson was fined for publishing a cartoon about an active case of the Supreme Court of Colorado. Believing that his rights protected by the 14th Amendment were infringed, Patterson turned to the Supreme Court to repeal his punishment. Holmes argued that the cartoon was an obstruction of justice.
The segregation academies were private schools only for white people. These schools were not integregated and supported segregation. Even after all the hard work of the civil rights movment, these segregated academies were not for black people. The Southern Manifesto opposed integregation in public places. The SM made it possible for these private schools to exist.