This decision showed that even though African-Americans can vote, their vote was not always counted. This caused people to stand up and fight back for their rights that are stated in the 14th Amendment, and protected by the Equal Protection Clause. Eventually the state of Florida stopped going against the two contracts by not counting votes by making excuses that they are “bad votes.” The states started counting votes from other races, and still do today. No matter who won the election of 2000, Florida should have counted all of the properly submitted votes from the African-Americans.
Al, argued that new standards established for resolving Presidential election contests were a direct violation of the U.S. Const. Art. II, § 1, cl. 2. Essentially they assert that Article II provides no basis to override the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to establish new standards that conflict with legislative enactments.
Thus, the law’s strongest protections have been rendered meaningless. Clearly they never heard of Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is when a dominant group uses its control of the government to abuse the rights of minority groups (Magstadt, p.78, 2015). Executing laws that place restrictions on minorities sounds all too familiar. Do some just turn a blind eye to what is written in our constitution?
In addition the court orders a hand recount of all uncounted undervotes in the entire state of florida. The recount is to proceed immediately and must be completed by december 12th”. The republicans however, find out if the election is not resolved by december 12th then the state legislature can decide who to award their state 's electoral votes to (the state legislature is primarily
New Hampshire has always been the first state to hold a primary, and passed a law that gives its secretary of state the power to change the date in order to precede any other primary by one week.(Convention and campaigns) Though New Hampshire is surrounded by blue states, it is a swing state, and could vote either way in the upcoming presidential primary and later in the presidential election.(New Hampshire Voting History) In the last ten presidential elections, the people of New Hampshire have voted for the Republican candidate five times, and for the democratic candidate five times. (New Hampshire Voting History) Although, in five of the past six general presidential elections the state has voted for the Democratic candidate.
Prior to the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, defendant Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in the state of Florida. This crime is a felony according to Florida state law. Unable to pay for defense counsel, Gideon requested that the court grant him one for free. The court denied Gideon his request of being granted defense counsel. The court stated, “Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person charged with a capital offense.”
Medina, Jr. represented Life magazine. Medina asserted that the privacy law in New York was unconstitutional because it is too broad and corrective. Medina also argued that the prior ruling in the case was unsuitable because the jury was allowed to conclude liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy and the privacy law does not impact freedom of the press. He put forth that the “fictionalization” aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression.
According to the Supreme Court, Florida’s rule disregards established medical practice. At face value, Florida’s statute seemed to be consistent with the decisions made in the case of Atkins v. Virginia. However, later it was discovered that Florida’s rule disregarded the established medical practice. For example, Florida was considering an IQ score as final and conclusive evidence of a defendant’s intellectual capacity, ignoring statistical fact which states that an IQ is best understood as a range rather than definite score. The Supreme Court’s rejections of a strict 70–point cutoff in the majority of states and a recognition of the standard error of measurement, provide strong evidence that society does not regard this strict cutoff as proper or humane.
In spite of the fact that a privilege to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court said that such a privilege is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of the fact that such choices are vital to our survival and our values. Accordingly, they should essentially reside with the individual instead of with the state. This choice is a conflict with the popular argument that something cannot be an actual constitutional right unless it is spelled out straightforwardly in the U.S. Constitution. It additionally stands out amongst the most imperative models on the general thought of common uniformity, clarifying that essential social equality is basic to our reality and cannot really be restricted on the grounds that a few people trust that their god can 't help
Brown v. Board was one case comprised of four other cases, Briggs v. Elliot, Belton v. Gebhart, Bolling v. Sharpe, and Davis v. Prince Edward County. Briggs v. Elliot Harry Briggs lived in Clarendon County, South Carolina with his wife and five children. He, as well as many other black families sued the school district because of the conditions of the schools they were forced to send their children (Ogletree 4).
United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue of the case was that It exceeded to the power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity. The case United States v. Lopez involved Alfonzo Lopez Jr., Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Congress. Unites States v. Lopez was about a 12th grader named
In the court case, Gil vs Whitford, the major concerns of this particular case was gerrymandering. Gerrymandering, is to favor one party or class by manipulating the boundaries of those involved in the electoral constituent. This case first arose in the year 2011; in Wisconsin. In the state of Wisconsin, two republicans were elected in the states assembly and senate. Soon after that, the redirecting plan began to take place.
Research Paper Quiz The topic that I have chosen explains why gerrymandering should be illegal. Gerrymandering is the process of a state having the ability to redraw the voting district. In turn, this can give the party in control of that state an advantage over the other party by redrawing the district in their favor. I picked this topic, because I find it ridiculous that many states have the ability to move where your vote counts for their own agenda, and this makes it difficult for minorities in voting districts to be properly represented and allows for the party to maintain control of the house. Write a couple paragraphs explaining the court cases you picked and why you picked them:
Right-to-work laws have been heavily debated even before their formal inception in the mid-1940s and they continue to be debated today. The core of the debate is about union security, which is the unions right to secure their position in a shop once voted in. One example of union security is compulsory unionism. Right-to-work laws are legislation enacted on a per state bases that limits or eliminates compulsory unionism. The main viewpoint of right-to-work supporters is that compulsory unionism breaches inherent freedoms.