However, there's too much freedom in regards to gun control. The second amendment clearly states that the need for arms is only necessary in case of a militia to form. We as a country are no longer in the need of a militia since we are not in the wild west (constitution amend 2). Another valid argument that if we were ever in a deficit of soldiers we would draft them like it happened in the Vietnam war. The second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, but it never specifies their intentions.
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. Subsequently they contend that because Florida did not have a statewide vote recount standard and counties were using different standards to decide which votes would count, Florida was not treating all its citizens equally under the law thus violating the Equal Protection Clause. This was problematic in that two voters could have marked their ballot in the same manner but in one county it would be deemed acceptable and in another it would be rejected. It is critical to note that "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits government officials from implementing an electoral system that gives the votes of similarly situated voters different effect based on the happenstance of the county or district in which those voters live." Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 104
Chapter 13 is titled "Interrogations, Admissions, and Confessions." The case Miranda v. Arizona (1966) established the Miranda warnings. This ruling requires that any statements from individuals obtained by violating that individual's Miranda rights are not admissible in court, whether or not they were obtained voluntarily from that individual. There are no specific words an individual has to say in order to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights, although courts have found some phrases to be too ambiguous to invoke these rights, and many courts do not require law enforcement clarify an individual's intent. There are several psychological tactics that violate a person's due process rights.
Although William Marbury is entitled to a remedy it will not come in the form of a “writ of mandamus”. 3. No. The Supreme Court of the United States doesn’t have the “original jurisdiction” according to Article III of the Constitution; therefore, limiting the ability to perform a writ of mandamus. The case was discharged.
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. In addition, the court found that even though the Board of Regents did not grant tenure,
This argument does not speak to the constitutional issue of the case. The Supreme Court’s main objective is to protect individuals and minorities from oppressive government. This law is a clear violation of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. The wording of the Second Amendment is clear and does not mention anything regarding regulations. We as the court must ignore the
A divided New York Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional because it has the primary effect of advancing religion (Mercer Law Review, n.d). As the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In this case the state of New York Legislature violated the Constitution. Therefore, the holding for this case by Justice Souter signifies that Chapter 748 violated the Establishment Clause. Souter held that the state law departed from the constitutional mandate of neutrality toward religion by delegating the state’s discretionary authority over public schools and that a state may not delegate its civic authority to a group chosen according to religious criteria (Osborne, n.d). The statute was also seen as impermissible as an advancement of religious
The Exclusionary Rule is an important constitutional principle of modern criminal procedure law in the United States. Generally, it prohibits the summary at criminal trial of any evidence seized or otherwise obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. Under the Exclusionary Rule, unsuitably obtained evidence that leads to the subsequent discovery of other incriminating evidence automatically invalidates or "poisons" the newly discovered derivative evidence in the same way that a poisonous tree taints the fruits growing on any of its branches. While it stems from the Fourth Amendment, it is not actually enclosed anywhere within the text of the Constitution or its Amendments. In fact, it was judicially shaped more than a century after the Constitution was approved in 1789 and the Fourth Amendment
Following the enactment of the Eighteenth Amendment, it would now be illegal to produce, sale, or transport alcohol within the United States. However, the consumption and private ownership of alcohol was not part of the Eighteenth Amendment and therefore still legal to have in your own home. Within the Eighteenth Amendment there were three sections which defined the control of alcoholic beverages. Two of the three sections were important to how alcohol will be controlled as well as who has jurisdiction. Section one states that the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” (Mount) Section two states that “the Congress and several states shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
The U.S. Supreme Court denied him citizenship of the U.S. even if he was a citizen of a free state. Even though the states had the power to give Scott and his family citizenship since the national government did not the national governments decree overruled the state’s