Question Presented: Whether President Doe’s executive order, on the newly annexed island to Florida, violates any Constitutional Amendments, which should be granted to the occupiers of said island under the Constitution of the United States of America.
Brief Answer: Yes, President Doe’s executive order, with its 13 provisions, violated the Constitutional Amendments granted to the occupiers of the newly annexed island to Florida. Florida has jurisdiction over the island, and therefore, the occupiers of the island have to follow Florida laws.
Facts:
After invading and subsequently occupying the island newly annexed to Florida, President Doe enacted an executive order that violated the Shiners
Discussion:
Because of the following the court should not honor the Presidents executive order.
Constitution article 2 section 3 states, “he shall take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,” meaning that the
…show more content…
This is a violation of the 6th Constitutional Amendment, which states, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. Provision 8 states that Shiner’s are not entitled to bail. Shiners may be executed by stabbing chair, drowning, or stoning by coconut. This is a violation of the 8th Constitutional Amendment, which states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amend.
Lawrence v. Texas 539 US 558 (2003) Case Facts: In September 1998, a same-sex couple in Houston, Texas were arrested in their own apartment after police found them engaging in a consensual, intimate, sexual act. The two men, John Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were convicted of violating the Texas “Homosexual Conduct” Law, which made it a Class-C misdemeanor for same-sex adults to engage in sexual intercourse and considered it illegal sodonomy. The statute was created in 1973 after the state changed its criminal code to end the banning of heterosexual anal or oral sex. The sheriff deputies arrested and charged the couple for performing “deviate sexual intercourse” as listed in the mentioned in the Texas statute.
According to Dent v. City of Dallas, the court ruled that police officers performing discretionary duties in good faith and acting within the course and scope of their employment are immune from personal liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity. The question that is presented in this situation is whether or not the police officer was acting within his course and scope of his employment. As a nation we have endowed our police officers with the right and authority to enforce the laws on whom they choose. Whether or not we reach the realization to this reality however is another story. The police officer has to use his ability on whom to arrest and not arrest responsibly because his actions do affect society.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wants aborted babies to be buried or cremated instead of being treated like medical waste, according to his spokeswoman Ciara Matthews. The Health and Human Service Commission in Texas has proposed new rules that would require abortion service providers to either bury or cremate fetal remains as part of an effort to regulate these institutions. Health commissioner spokesman Bryan Black said the rules seek to maintain “the highest standards of human dignity,” the Texas Tribune relays.
In the case of Moore v. Texas, “the Supreme Court will face the question of whether it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment to use outdated medical standards in assessing intellectual disabilities to determine whether an individual may be executed.” This really stood out to me, to think that he committed the act of a murder in 1980, when he took the life of a grocery store clerk and they are questioning if he should face the consequences that he was given. In my opinion if you chose to take the life of any individual you must pay for your actions, I feel that many people use “intellectual disability” as a way to avoid being put to death. I do agree many people have mental sickness such as “schizophrenia, bipolar disorders etc” but if you
FACTS: Cornerstone is a Texas company that owns hospitals and was in the market to grow its business. Some of the Cornerstone executives, the Respondent, came across an investment and used Cornerstone funds to expand and buy new companies without consulting Cornerstone’s board. These executives later resigned and continued to make business under the new formed companies. Cornerstone filed a suit stating that Respondent’s actions were against their fiduciary duty. One of the investments was made with Nautic Partners whose firm is in Rhode Island.
Generally LARRY E. RIBSTEIN & ROBERT R. KEATINGE, RIBSTEIN AND KEATINGE ON LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANIES § 1:2 (2d ed. 2011). David L. Cohen, Theories of the Corporation and the Limited Liability Company: How Should Courts and Legislatures Articulate Rules for Fencing the Veil, Fiduciary Responsibility and Securities Regulation for the Limited Liability Company?, 51 OKLA. L. REV. 427, 429 (1998) (discussing the significance of the LLC in Delaware). WILLIAM MEADE FLETCHER, FLETCHER CYCLOPEDIA OF THE LAW OF CORPORATIONS § 18 (2012).
During Kennedy’s presidency many crises and policy initiatives took place. One event that took place during Kennedy’s presidency was the Bay of Pigs. The Bay of Pigs was a complete failure and strengthened Cuba’s ties to the Soviet Union, this however, was only the tip of the iceberg. The crisis that proved to be the most dangerous during the Kennedy administration was the Cuban missile crisis. In October of 1962, American spy planes discovered that the Soviet Union was installing missiles in Cuba capable of reaching the United States with nuclear weapons.
No, the Act does not being unconstitutionally applied as an Ex Post Facto law Clauses. 2. No, the Act does not violate the Single Subject. 3. No, the Act does not violate the Separation of Powers Clause.
Executive Orders serve to clarify the Constitution and the powers allocated to each officer, and, while these Executive Orders rarely decide upon the powers of the President, it is imperative for the President to clarify its own powers - lest it steps on the toes of another office. Therefore, this Executive Order will clarify and bind the powers and responsibilities of the President. Foremost, the President is invested with numerous powers, but at the very forefront of the President’s powers is the power to execute the Constitution. The basic agreement of the people is that the President will execute the Constitution in its entirety.
In 1899, the United States annexed the Philippines after a short but bloody war with Spain. These rich, plentiful islands full of resources were in great demand. The U.S. saw the Philippines; fighting against Spain so like them when they were rebelling, and decided to step in and aid ‘the spirit of 1776’ (Doc. A). However, the question still remains: should the United States have annexed the Philippines?
The spirit of 1776 was independence and by annexing the Philippines the US took away the independence of the Philippines as well as the Filipino people. Taking away the independence of another colony/nation is hypocritical because it goes against the values of which the US was founded on. The Philippines should not have been annexed because the US could still profit from the Philippines without annexation. “It is not necessary to own people to trade with them,”(document D). The US did not profit from annexing the Philippines, trade wise, because they could still trade with them whether they were annexed into the US or not.
Roosevelt 's executive order 9066, was legal because the executive order was issued during war, Some might say it was illegal because it was going against ‘equal protection of the law ' clause of the 14th Amendment. Supreme Court justified the executive order as a wartime necessity (http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp.). Laws can also give additional powers to the President but when using an executive order, the Congress can override it with a new law. In section 1 of the 14th amendment, it states that all natural citizens should be treated fairly and there should be no state enforcing a law to abridge the rights and privileges of citizens; without due process of laws. Therefore, President Roosevelt created an executive order, creating the
When you think of the term “cruel and unusual punishment”, what is the first thing that pops into your head? You are probably thinking of something very horrific and terrible like being forced to fall out of an airplane that is 30,000 feet in the air because you forgot to turn in your homework or something crazy along those lines. When a punishment is administered upon someone that is too severe a consequence for the action that they committed, this is considered to be “cruel and unusual”. The Death Penalty is a punishment that is occasionally given within the United States and in many other places around the world for crimes that are considered absolutely inexcusable and heinous. Some would argue that the Death Penalty should be considered a “cruel and unusual” punishment due to two major propositions as presented in Romell Broom’s argument.
Hello governor Scott, Hurricane Charley has recently struck our area we are in a state of emergency and in need of support to fix our beloved city. Since the hurricane, we have had problems with people being evacuated from their homes and troops being allowed to enter the area . A person’s individual rights are not absolute, if we could do what we wanted with no limit, this country would be in utter chaos. Citizens with rights would interfere with other rules, ignoring them and would eventually lead to havoc. I am sure we can agree that the government must balance our rights with what is best for the general welfare of others.
According to Jim Garrison at (huffingtonpost). “Like the NDAA, the new Executive Order puts the government completely above the law, which, in a democracy, is never supposed to happen. The United States is essentially now under martial law without the exigencies of a national emergency.” So how is this possible? Or what is the emergency?