A public school cannot suspend a student with no notice or hearing because it infringes on his or her rights. The specific amendments broken by the public school officials are primarily the fifth and sixth. Public schools are not allowed to take away rights and liberties given to the American people. The suspended student was denied his rights to due process and his right to formal informant of crime committed. A liberty that every American enjoys is upon crime committed they are awarded a hearing/trial in order to promote fairness.
Part one: I strongly believe that judge Foster’s view is more persuasive. The judges should take into consideration the legislative intent when judges interpret and apply statutes due to the fact that words do not always show the intent that the legislative branch had when it created a statute. As a result, the goal of the statute will not be reached. The fact that words sometimes do not convey the real message of it is really important when it comes to criminal system.
The overbreadth doctrine differs from the void-for-vagueness doctrine as it applies more toward violations of Constitutional rights rather than criminal situations. The most commonly protected activity that the overbreadth doctrine prohibits infringement upon is the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech rights of the people, when a law is found to be overbroad it is commonly restricting the rights of the people to express themselves freely. An overbroad law may be so restricting the people may decide not to participate in an activity for fear of being charged with a
The 1st amendment says that people have right to freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition against the government. This proved that they would not let their government stop them from voicing their opinions and trying to change how their government ran if they did not agree. These rights were necessary for all to continue tolerating their government and agree with the rights that were being
Judges in every state must adhere to these and abide by them. Thus, it is important to our country because it decides if a state’s laws are constitutionality sound or if it is contradictory to the U.S. Constitution in any manner. We have the highest court in our land, the Supreme Court, to decide these issues
The right to obey a law, according to Dworkin, is an associative obligation. Associative obligation is : the special responsibilities social practice attahces to membership in some biological or social group, like the responsibility of family of friends or neighbors” (1977:196). Any group of individuals that consider themselves a community cannot have expectations in occordence with a law, only a true community can. For example a group of white supremicists cannot say they belong to a whites only communities and have their own obligations that outweigh those to the government. In a true community the law gives us moral reason to stop us from perfoming acts prohibited by the law before the law was created.
Civil liberties and public order law define the relationship between individuals and society in relation to the exercise of rights and freedoms, which affects the society. The law relating to public order is the means by which freedom and rights are defined and restricted for the greater good of the society . The rights of freedom of assembly, for the example, is one which is capable of disrupting the rights of others to move along the highway or to enjoy public spaces free from interference. It is equally important that when one group intends to exercise its right it should not damage more relations or come into physical conflict with groups holding directly opposing political views. Accordingly, in the interest of public order, certain requirements are laid down for the
When the founders of the United States created the Criminal Court System (CCS), they imagined that the courts would act as a neutral ground were disputes could be resolved. In the Criminal Courts, the quarrel is usually between an individual and the state. The criminal proceeding that takes place is often the result of the defendant being accused with violating some provision of the criminal code. The founders also created the criminal court in way that it is constrained by constitutional limits. The Constitution holds that everyone is entitled to due process.
Here we have the classic dilemma between the spirit and the letter of the law, or, as Vere frames it, the conflict between conscience and law. Because laws exist to support the integrity of a society and because laws receive their strength from those who enforce them, logic calls for the equal and firm application of those laws. Traditionally, people think of justice as being blind, and for good reason: once the adjudicator begins to base his judgments on mitigating, particular, or personal circumstances and considerations, he threatens the very fabric of the law and, by extension, the very fabric of society. However, the firm application of the law means little if that law itself is unjust. Despite the logic of Captain Vere’s arguments, especially
The different constitutional standards have been developed by The U.S. Supreme Court to assess the validity of changes based on Due Process & Equal Protection. The Due Process includes the rights of “life, liberty and property”, it is about each citizen. However, the Equal Protection Clause includes protecting a specific group from discrimination. If the problem is about the Fundamental Rights of people, The Strict Scrutiny, the standard is used to weigh the government 's interest against a constitutional right or principle, is used but if it is about the Ordinary Rights of people, the Rational Basis Test, which requires the government to show only the action is rationally related to a legitimate government interest,
The denial of equal protection claim that was filed was remanded. The courts decided that the Officers involved have qualified immunity. Qualified immunity would not have been granted if the Officer conduct violated Sinthasommphone’s constitutional rights. Analysis
The majority believes that the circumstances were reasonable for the alleged crime that was being committed in the school. The school has an obligation towards the protection for the other students and to maintain order within the school and that the rules of the school not to be broken. The search for the pills are considered just because the search was of places that the pills could have been hidden and if not for the fact the rules were broken and the information about Redding’s disbarment of pills were brought to the attention of the school officials the search would not have occurred. The main disagreements between the parties are the way in which the search was handled. It is an agreement that what the student decided to do were against