In addition, Sindermann was entitled to a hearing with the Board of Regents and a full trial in federal District Court regarding his contract not being renewed. Since this was not offered to him it was a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process (Findlaw, 2015). This case was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and they rendered a split decision 5 votes for Sindermann and 3 votes against. Justice Stewart wrote the majority opinion and stated “nonrenewal of a one year teaching contract may not be predicated on [a teacher’s] exercise of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights”. The court further asserted that Sindermann’s disagreements could not be the basis of his termination because he was exercising his First Amendment right to free speech.
“Campaign finance laws were enacted. Ford's Rockefeller Commission, which conducted a limited review of domestic CIA operations, was overtaken by the much more aggressive Church Committee and other post-Watergate Congressional investigation”(Watergate). All the reforms were good for the country but there is still a sense of lack of faith or no faith in the government. (PBS). One positive about the Watergate scandal is that the government showed that even when a president does the impossible like a Saturday Night Massacre when he fired everyone that was important to the trial, that he is still going to get caught.
It is still unknown exactly what the burglars were looking for, but it played little role in the 1972 presidential campaign. A pair of Washington Post journalists began publishing investigative stories that made it clear that persons close to the president had ordered the burglary and then tried to “cover up” White House involvement. Further Congressional hearings revealed a larger pattern of wiretapping, break-ins, and attempts to sabotage political opposition. The fact that Nixon had made tape recordings of conversations that took place in his office, caused Archibald Cox to get involved. He was a special prosecutor that the president reluctantly hired to investigate the Watergate affair.
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.
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
Bipartisanship in Congress has not changed much since the 1970s. The dichotomy between before War Powers resolution and after makes theorizing about the relationship as a dividing line between Foreign policy surround a dangerous international environment into one that is a function of a resurgent Congress. The more we get through the 21st Century the more it seems as Congress having more and more of an influence and acting not in concert with the President while hearing loudly what the People of the U.S. know and hear about through the media. It is likely that without any incentives for stopping politics as usual, they both will most likely continue to shape policy according to their own political needs. Further evolution has occurred due to
I have come to realize that the media has always sided what was popular to the public. Though in some cases I’m sure there have been some influencing through monetary means and under the table deals. Nonetheless the media actually served as a counter argument to my thoughts and actually helped me remembered in why I vote for what I vote for. As you can see from most of the media in the last 6 years it has served towards democrats and more government interference. Now don’t get me wrong things like the patriot act are necessary for the safety of our nations but I believe the NSA has been taking things much too far.
Trigger Data In this case Bills duty to preserve arose, at the latest, 6 months ago, when former investors sued the company seeking over $8 million in damages. It could also be that the duty arose at an earlier date, but the facts do not give any hint to if Bill would reasonably anticipate litigation prior to the lawsuit filed by the investors. If Bills should have known that the evidence was relevant to future litigation then the duty would have attached at that point. b. What Must be Preserved
This scandal served as a precursor to America 's overwhelming distrust of the government. Suspected of orchestrating a break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., President Nixon’s administration attempted to cover up any signs of their involvement. This scandal led to the discovery of many abuses of power by the Nixon administration, Nixon’s impeachment, eventually Nixon’s resignation from office in August of 1974. Though there is no solid evidence to convict President Nixon of directly ordering the break in, his administration was indeed guilty of trying to cover the entire ideal by paying off witnesses. This scandal added to a growing credibility gap which began during Lyndon B. Johnson’s
Most of the cases which involve electronics searches, the law enforcement should be put in place to allow the governments conduct search outside its’ premises. Though case law is splinted, employees tend not to have genuine privacy expectations in connection with the companys’ computer which store data. During 11th September 2001 when there was a trade canter attack in the pentagon and general in the whole world, the president came up with electronic surveillance policy to strengthen the searches program. This patriotic act was mainly created to increase the capability of enforcement of law thus searching telephonic communication, emails and any financial record would be easier to access. The law permitted search warranty which permitted access to voicemails hence obtaining the relevant information needed.