Grace Nelson PSC 2302- Case Analysis Project The case that I studied is Obergefell v. Hodges, which took place earlier this year (2015). This case, and the other ones surrounding it, asked whether the Constitution requires states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples and recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. In this particular case, James Obergefell was the plaintiff, suing against the state of Ohio. Obergefell met his partner, John Arthur two decades ago. After Arthur was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in 2011, the men decided to marry and fully commit to each other before Arthur’s death from the fatal disease.
While this can seem quite complicated to follow, Gettier supports his claims by presenting two specific cases. In this paper, I will refute Gettire’s argument against JTB as knowledge through the lack of justification and persuasiveness in his cases. In the first case, we are presented with two characters, Smith and Jones, who have both applied for the same job. It is stated that Smith has evidence for a proposition, which we will call A, that 1) Jones is going to get the job and 2) Jones has ten coins in his pocket. Smith’s evidence for this is that 1) the president of the company told him that Jones would get the job and 2) Smith counted the number of coins in Jones pocket ten minutes ago.
The founders of this country wanted to be sure that this tyranny was not present in the laws and functions of this new nation. Even though there is no “federalism” named in the US Constitution; federalism was the government system that created this nation. It was the creation of a federal government overseeing politically independent states that has made the government of the United States so unique. Federalism is “the division of powers and responsibilities between the national and state governments” (Fallon Jr, p. 961) The Constitution of the United States includes many provisions with the powers and responsibilities of the federal and the state governments. These provisions underlaying the division of responsibilities between the national and state government.
The Constitution of 1876 was toward the end in the development of a new, restructured and revised constitution in Texas, yet it was not the last attempt to revise the natural law of Texas. Pressure begin to build to change and streamline the Texas Constitution in the late 1960s. By 1969, fifty-six obsolete and out dated provisions were revoked, including a whole article. This called for a more fundamental overhaul and restructuring of the Constitution, which led to an extensive and prolonged process of constitutional revision that began in the 1970s. Efforts during this time were imperative for two reasons: it explained a long-standing concern whether the legislature had the constitutional right to convene as a constitutional convention; and secondly, the Texas Constitutional Revision Commission provided a thorough revision of the state constitution that served as the foundation for a new
The three ministers met in Ostend, Belgium to create the final document which stated: America should offer $120 million for the island and, if the offer was refused, America would have every reason to take Cuba from Spain, presumably leading to war. Freeport Question and Freeport Doctrine: Two years before the Election of 1869, Republican nominee Abraham Lincoln challenged Northern-Democratic nominee Stephen Douglas to a series of debates. From August to October, seven confrontations were arranged named the Lincoln-Douglas Debates. During the most famous debate in Freeport, Illinois, Lincoln asked the infamous Freeport question: “Suppose the people of a territory should vote slavery down. The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott decision had decreed that they could not.
Ratification required prohibition of poll taxes or any other taxes for voters in federal elections. In 1966, the U.S. Supreme Court in in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections ruled poll taxes on any election level as unconstitutional. “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” 25th Amendment Constitutes a plan in case of presidential removal. Has been invoked on six occasions, since ratification. “In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.” In other words if the President dies in office, the Vice President will undertake the position in presidency.
The Supreme Court decision in Chicago v. McDonald, 561 US 742 (2010) set the groundwork for States to take a deeper look at their particular gun control laws to determine if they were concurrent with the justices ruling as there would most likely be additional challenges to other states laws, but did the ruling in itself establish gun control legislation? A summary of the case and the preceding decision in the Supreme Court decision of 2008, the District of Columbia v. Heller, is necessary to make this determination. In addition, a summary of the justice’s views on both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution will offer some additional insight so as to be able to form an opinion on the question. In recent years more than any, one of the most hotly and passionately debated topics of our great nation has been the 2nd Amendment. Article II of the Bill of Rights states, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It has been discussed during lectures, speeches, on the floor of congress as well as at the local bar and the dinner table.
The Supreme Court has been used for basically the entirety of America’s history. Though many think of recent ones or cases in the past century when thinking about the Supreme Court, the 1800s had many Supreme Court cases that were pivotal to America. Marbury v. Madison was a case in the Supreme Court decided in 1803. When John Adams was in his final days of presidency, he nominated people to serve as justices of peace for D.C., but his secretary did not deliver all of the commissions by the time Thomas Jefferson became president, and William Marbury was one whose commission was not delivered. When Jefferson became president, he ended up disallowing his secretary James Madison from delivering the commissions, but Marbury along with other
One man, Homer Plessy refused to move to a black train car when asked. This eventually started the Plessy v. Ferguson Court Case. Plessy V. Ferguson decided the “separate but equal” doctrine, meaning that the black and whites could have separate facilities, as long as they were the same in equality. In 1890, U.S government officials decided to put the Separate Car Act into place in Louisiana. One year later, a group of Creole professionals came together to decide if the Act was unconstitutional.
Constitution place on state’s power to determine voter qualifications? Those limitations start with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act prohibits racial discrimination when voting in the local, state, and federal levels. “Section 2, which closely followed the language of the 15th amendment, applied a nationwide prohibition of the denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color” (ourdocuments.gov). Not since the reconstruction period after the civil war had there been such a “significant statutory change in the relationship between the Federal and state governments” (ourdocuments.gov).
Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote the Majority Opinion, saying that since the practice was not in violation of the Lemon test. The Lemon test was a test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman in which ? ?the court concluded that for a law to comply with the Establishment Clause, it must (1) have a secular purpose; (2) have a predominantly secular effect; and (3) not foster ?excessive entanglement? between government and religion?? (Pew Research Center, 2009) and thusly was not in violation of the Establishment Clause (Chicago-Kent Institute of Law, n.d.).
In 1995, the Supreme Court decided the landmark case U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The court ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. After the recent ballot measure adding an amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate, was challenged on the grounds that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution: “No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five
Where Do You Stand? William skimmed the article. The article detailed efforts underway in Boston, Providence, Montpelier, and Augusta to reconstitute the Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine state governments. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Maine had scheduled state constitutional conventions to meet on Thanksgiving Day to repeal and replace the changes made to their state constitutions, and reconstitute centralized authority. The article noted that Connecticut and New Hampshire were the only New England states that had not yet taken steps to reconstitute state government.
TO: Thomas R. Krane, P.h.D., Acting Director of Federal Bureau of Prisons FROM: Roger Rael, Graduate Student University of Colorado-Denver DATE: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 RE: Evaluating the consequences of continued super-max confinement I. Issue The issue is broad and national in scope. Whether the Federal Bureau of Prisons should continue supporting the use of super-max facilities is a matter of extreme societal and legal questions. Solitary confinement, for an extended or indefinite period of time, implicates constitutional rights and questions our morality as a society. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Wilkinson v. Austin, decided more than a decade ago that the state of Ohio 's Super Max facilities did not violate those prisoner 's due process rights long established under precedent.