McCulloch vs Maryland Summary In case of McCulloch vs Maryland is a landmark case that questioned the extent of federal government 's separation of power from state government. A problem arose when the Second Bank of America was established. With the War of 1812 and it’s financial suffering in the past, the government sought to create a bank with the purpose of securing the ability to fund future wars and financial endeavors. Many states were disappointed with this new organization, one of them being Maryland.
The case United States v. Lawson, 2009 WL 1916063 (Ky. 2009) deals extensively with FRE Rule 404(b). In the case four different items of evidence are viewed for admissibility under Rule 404. The case focuses on three co-defendants who are charged with five counts of bribery conspiracy and three counts of conspiracy on construction or repair of state roads and highways. The motion viewed focuses on Nighbert, a co-defendant, and his objections to admitting certain evidence against him under Rule 404(b). The four items are: an FBI report of an alleged conversation Nighbert had with the mayor regarding his son, failed disclosure on financial forms of his ownership of a company, an FBI interview concerning Kentucky road contracts and Nighbert, and a newspaper article regarding the defendant’s property and nearby construction.
Gideon V. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 (1963) is the case I have chose to brief. According to US courts website “Clarence Earl Gideon was an unlikely hero. He was a man with an eighth-grade education who ran away from home when he was in middle school. He spent much of his early adult life as a drifter, spending time in and out of prisons for nonviolent crimes. ”The Petitioner within the case was Clarence Earl Gideon.
Obergefell v. Hodges is most popularly referred to as the Supreme Court case for same-sex marriage. It is one of the many cases related to the topic of same-sex marriage being a constitutional right. In this specific case James Obergefell and John Arthur filed a lawsuit against the state of Ohio to allow the state to recognize their marriage on death certificates. Obergefell and Arthur were married on the tarmac of the Baltimore-Washington International Airport in Maryland by Arthur’s aunt, Paulette Roberts, on July 11, 2013. Sadly, Arthur died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) just months into their marriage on October 22, 2013.
Spending most of his young adulthood in and out of prisons for minor nonviolent crimes, Clarence Earl Gideon seemed like an unlikely victor when trying to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court Case, Gideon v. Wainwright, Clarence Earl Gideon, with the help of cases before him and his well trained attorney, successfully succeeded in persuading the Supreme Court to accept his appeal and rule in his favor by persisting until he received the rights all American’s are granted by the United States Constitution. Clarence Earl Gideon had been convicted of many minor crimes throughout his life, but the crime that set the scene for the case Gideon v. Wainwright, was when Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the
One primary legislative cause of the difficulties in prosecuting police is the 1986 the United States supreme courts case, Tennessee v. Garner, which did not allows usages of deadly force by an officer unless "the officer has a good-faith belief that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" but the rhetorically vague term "good-faith belief" allowed an objective reason to kill and created a barrier in proving an officer is guilty in court system. While this old legislative piece accounts the difficulties in prosecuting police, the traditional unspoken rule of police officers not to report against colleagues cause corruption in the process of prosecution which is another source of
The following is a summary of Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997), including information pertaining to the facts of Hendrick’s criminal history, the procedural history of the cases leading up to the Supreme Court decision, the issues surrounding the Supreme Court decision, and the precedent that has been set for future similar cases. Leroy Hendricks, the subject of this legal matter, is an individual who has exhibited a pattern of inappropriate sexual behaviors throughout his lifetime. Hendricks claims that his sexual misconduct first began in 1950 when he was twenty years old and he exposed himself to two females; shortly after in 1957 he received a criminal charge for indecent exposure, for exposing himself to another female victim.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2014) The Obergefell v. Hodges (2014) case involved the marriage of same sex couples. Groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of them refusing to recognize legal same sex marriages. Plaintiffs argued that the states’ statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In my brief I will explore the effect of the Loving V. Virginia (1967) on the case of Obergefell V. Hodges (2015) and how it led to legalization of same sex marriage. I will prove that the 9th amendment which addresses the right to marriage did not specify that marriage should be between a man and a woman. I will also prove that the precedents set by prior cases reflected on the decision of the supreme justice. I will first explain the prior cases and discuss their rulings and reflect on the reason judges chose this. I will then discuss the Obergefell v. Hodges case and its similarity to prior cases .
Within our contemporary society, the Bill of Rights serves as symbol of the basic American freedoms and protects individuals from irrational government policies, which are not explicitly stated in the Constitution. In the Supreme Court case Maryland v. King, the culprit, Alonzo Jay King, utilized the Fourth Amendment after Maryland police arrested him for first and second-degree assault and swabbed his mouth to collect his DNA in order to check for any previous crimes committed. King argued that the practice of collecting DNA was unconstitutional because Maryland did not have a definite reason to analyze his DNA, as this intruded his privacy and that law enforcements would abuse the collection of DNA in order to convict people of unrelated
Why do we need oversight? Why do we need to guard change? The author states that if “left unattended a new law or policy can turn out to be totally ineffective” (Mandell & Schram, pg. 482). If no one enforces a law who says it will be followed?
The author feels the Supreme court is a bad idea because they think it will lead to abuse of power and the Supreme Court will take over the government because there wasn’t a system of checks to limit its power yet. The author shows this view when they say “In the exercise of this power they will not be subordinate to, but above the legislature . . . The supreme court then has a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away.” (Antifederalist 79) This shows he thinks the Supreme Court will have the power to bend the constitution to its whim.
“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.
In 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges case ended the “state bans on same-sex marriage”, therefore legalizing same-sex marriage (Important Supreme Court Cases). Now, “same-sex couples can now receive the benefits...of marriage that were largely exclusive to heterosexual couples” (Koch). The ruling has led to the modern fight for gay civil rights. Exposure to the LGBTQ+ community, the southern “Bathroom Bills”, and other fights for transgender rights, and the press for more LGBTQ+ representation in the media has erupted from this case. Both rulings had very big impacts on their respective communities.
Liberals support same-sex marriage and argue that love is grounds enough for marriage, regardless of sexual orientation. Conservatives are usually opposed and often cite religious viewpoints and concerns about the reading of children as the main reasons for their opposition. In the 1970s the court case Baker v. Nelson occurred. It was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that a state law limiting marriage to persons of the opposite sex did not violate the U.S. Constitution. On June 26, 2015 the United States Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states.
