What was President John Adams goal before he ended his presidency? The Organic Act, this act was perfect it was to ensure that though John Adams was not going to be president anymore he would still have a majority of federalist become dominate and have federalist ideologies pretty much mandate the federal judiciary. He took action and choose forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen circuit court justices for the District of Columbia, but his plan later failed after the documents were not delivered on time and new president Thomas Jefferson choose not to submit the completed documents. William Marbury one of the recipients that was chosen by John Adams, refuse to accept Jefferson’s decision and took matters into his own hands. The facts of the case were vividly sought out, Marbury was to be appointed as justice of peace and his paperwork was completed and ready to be submitted before he could take office.
His sentence is changed from manslaughter and he has now been sentenced to 18-20 years in prison for manslaughter, followed by four to five years in prison for illegal possession of a firearm. (Ryan, 2013) During a trial, the evidence is again presented to a court of law or a jury. Being sentenced to Capital Punishment is very unlikely to happen for Burke, as the state of Massachusetts has abolished Capital Punishment and only uses it in very severe cases where the suspect is tried federally (McCarthy, 2014) instead of regionally, like the Boston Bomber Case. Burke most likely got this sentence, because he pleaded guilty, possibly after enough evidence was gathered to prove his guilt and thereby “has taken responsibility for shooting the victim, resulting in his death, over what appears to have been a dispute about money” (Boston.com, 2013) Burke is most likely to receive this sentence, because it is exactly the crime he committed. He committed manslaughter which was proven by the messages on the phone and apparently other evidence that has been found.
Korematsu vs. US: The supreme court case of Korematsu vs. US was during ww2 and shortly after the attacks on pearl harbor. The supreme court decision was 6-3 in Korematsu 's favor, the impact showed that it was a violation oft he 14th amendment which said that everyone had equal protection under law. Plessy vs. Ferguson: The supreme court case of Plessy vs. Ferguson was the case that made segregation legal, the phrase during that time was "Separate but equal."
Charles Manson is a serial killer that was put in prison. He killed 35 people that did nothing to him. Do you think he should be executed? Amendment 8 of the Constitution states that he can not be executed, therefore he will continue to live in a prison where he gets 3 hot meals a day, a comfortable cot to sleep on, free time outside, and possibly television. I think amendment 8 should be changed from no cruel and unusual punishment to, a person shall be punished how the court see´s fit.
A perfect example is the Dred Scott v Sandford case. Dred Scott had moved with his owner to free states. When his owner died he tried to purchase his freedom; however, the widow rejected. Dred Scott filed suit and the case was heard by the supreme court. Chief Justice Roger Taney issued the decision, that Dred Scott whether free or a slave is not a U.S. Citizen and therefore had not right to sue in Federal court (Lecture, 05 February).
Clarence Earl Gideon was an indigent living in Florida who was accused of breaking into the Bay Harbor Poolroom in Panama City, Florida with the intention to commit petty larceny. He had to represent himself at trial since he was poor and Florida did not provide state-funded attorneys for indigents. Once the case was taken up by the Supreme Court, it was affirmed by unanimous decision that anyone had a right to counsel. In Betts v. Brady which Gideon’s case overturned, Betts was an indigent accused of robbery who, when he asked for counsel at his trial, was denied. He later appealed his case up the court system and eventually to the Supreme Court on the grounds that, due to such actions, he had been held illegally.
Tom was shot seventeen times in the back and put to death. Although some people in this town believe that he should’ve been sent to jail and shot due to him being black. Regardless, no man or woman of any race or color, should be shot seventeen times in the back for a crime they didn’t even commit. This shouldn’t have ever happened and Tom Robinson did not deserve the kind of treatment that he was getting in court, and all the way to his death. On the day of Tom Robinson’s case, I was there sitting’ in a wooden chair watching on as the case went through.
In President Truman’s 1947 address before a joint session of congress, he proclaimed that the United States would support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. The Truman Doctrine demonstrated the U.S. intention to counter any further expansion with military force. This was the hard power element of containment. Then the Ottawa treaty or the land mine treaty that came in during the bush administration because the Clinton administration had not signed it. When George W Bush came into power he revoked the signing of that ban.
I have chosen cases Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona Podcast to expand on. In the case Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarance Earl Gideon was a man that didn’t have a very long education, he went until eighth grade and then ran away from home while in middle school. All of his early adult life he spent going in and out of prisons for crimes that weren’t even considered violent. Clarance was then accused of breaking and entering, stealing money out of the vending machines in Panama City, Florida. In his trial, Mr. Gideon requested that an attorney be appointed to him seeing as he could not afford one, the judge of his trial then told him attorneys only get provided for those whose cases would result in the death penalty if they were to be
As a result, Thomas Provenzo was executed on June 21, 2000 by the state of Florida (Swig). In summary, the cases of Panetti and Provenzo prove that the execution of mentally ill inmates is savage and inhumane, because they had no means of treatment and showed signs years before their
Bazile continued to sentence the couple to a year in prison, but guaranteed their freedom if they left the state of Virginia for the following 25 years. The Lovings consequently moved away, yet five years later they were arrested again while visiting family in Virginia. The case boosted up to the Supreme Court after that, and Virginia 's law was declared unconstitutional. Loving vs. Virginia brought an end to the discriminatory mindset that blacks and whites could not mix, let alone
Miranda was retried and again found guilty. At the second trial, a former girlfriend testified that he had told her about kidnapping and raping the 18-year-old in 1963. He was paroled in 1972 and was in and out of prison until he was killed in a stabbing at a bar when Miranda was 34 years old. No one was ever charged with his death (Cassell, 1998). The Impact of Miranda V. Arizona When the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the prosecution could not introduce Miranda’s confession during trial because the police had failed to inform the suspect of his right to have an attorney present and that he did not have to incriminate himself, the impact the ruling would have on the entire U.S. judicial system was only beginning to become clear.
Therefore, most of society agreed that what he did was wrong and he should be punished for it. The court had to be just and fair in their decision by interpreting the Constitution to the best of their abilities without biased though. They were making a ruling on the question, “Is the desecration of the American flag by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?” (Texas v. Johnson). The Supreme Court decided in favor of Johnson in a five to four ruling in June of 1989 (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica). This maintained the decision by the appeals court, by saying that desecration of the American flag is protected by the Constitution (The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica).
Ewing had been convicted of both burglary and robbery approximately seven years before the crime that gave rise to this appeal. When he stole the golf clubs, he was still on parole following his release from prison related to those two felony convictions. Following his conviction in this case, the trial judge declined to exercise discretion and convict Ewing of a misdemeanor only, as he was allowed but not required to do under California law. After determining that Ewing should be punished for a felony offense, the trial judge applied California’s “three strikes" law, where a criminal defendant must be sentenced indeterminate life sentence, which in this case was twenty-five years to life. Ewing claimed that the sentence was disproportionate
However, his fellow partner in crime could not deal with the guilt and agony of the crime, so he later confesses to the police. Hansen was sentenced to three years in Iowa Men’s Reformatory; however he only served 20 months. It was also recommended that Hansen receive psychiatric treatment. Hansen agreed to the treatment; he opened up to the psychiatrist and explained his compulsion to set fires. Unfortunately Hansen soon realized that his prosecutors were using the information he was telling to the psychiatrists’ against him in court.