We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
The Supreme Court’s rejections of a strict 70–point cutoff in the majority of states and a recognition of the standard error of measurement, provide strong evidence that society does not regard this strict cutoff as proper or humane. An inherent challenge or obstacle for the court could include the statement made during the decision of Atkins v. Virginia. The case stated that the method of determining intellectual disability was up to individual states. By making a new constitutional clarification, the Supreme Court is limiting the states freedom in determining intellectual disability. Given the new constitutional clarification of what cannot be done, one could ask what keeps states from using a the range to satisfy their personal agenda.
Despite the fact that the Constitution did not employ the term “slavery”, Article IV provided for the return of persons who escaped from their masters “held to service or labor” such as fugitive slaves. After 20 years of the confirmation of the Constitution in 1808, Article I provided the end of the slave trade. Many questions were left non responsed by the Constitution, especially, about the statue of slavery in the new territories obtained by the United States. (ibid) The failure to treat the comprehension and the honesty with slavery in the Constitution guaranteed a conflict over this issue and was particularly one of the leading motivations for war and those reasons were demonstrated in the quotation of the American Civil
The EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal agency that administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. Before 1964 employers can sometimes not hire an individual because of several reasons. For example, an employer can denied a person application because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex orientation, age and disability. The Civil Right Act of 1964 as amended in 1972 allows employees to fight back. Therefore, employers can no longer do such things.
Solicitor General Donald Verilli plans to use the argument that DAPA “goes against Congress’ framework that determines who may enter and stay in the country” (). The Fifth Circuit Court has said that “DAPA would affect more than just immigration enforcement but would actually change the status of illegal aliens” (). The Supreme Court will begin to listen to all disputes on the United States v. Texas case starting April 18th, “and is expected to give a ruling by the end of June” (). If for any reason the Supreme Court cannot come to a conclusion and end the voting at a tie, 4-4, the decision made by the previous court will
Gore case the U.S. Supreme Court steps in and decides to end the recount and declares Bush as the winner. Justice O’Connor along with four other justices terminated the challenges to the presidential election held in December, which will conclude the ongoing recount in Florida. This ended Al Gore chances of becoming president. Since the election O’Connor in an interview with Chicago Tribune stated “maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye’. It turned out the authorities in Florida hadn’t done a real good job there and kind of messed up.
It 's ironic that she says she changed her position after doing research, because virtually everything she says is uneducated on the second amendment. Two hundred years of Supreme Court jurisprudence affirms that the right to bear arms is a collective right, modified by the militia clause, NOT an individual right. http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=jcred The notion of an individual right to bear arms only appeared in Supreme Court law in 2010 in the Heller decision, which has been roundly criticized. The attached article is from a conservative legal scholar, who says that the decision violates conservative law by forcing legislation through the court. In other words, the court made up new law rather than respecting the constitution as
The Continuing Importance of the Voting Rights Act On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court made its final decision on the Shelby County, Alabama v Holder Case, deeming Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, passed by Congress in 1965 and extended many times, unconstitutional. Section 5, although not being struck down, became insignificant without Section 4 as it was the triggering formula that determined the coverage of Section 5. This Supreme Court decision took away the key part of the Voting Rights Act, which was an important method for the federal government to oversee and enforce the enfranchisement of black people in some states. While justifying their decision, the Court mentioned that Section 4 only applied to specific states and it was
Two years ago, in June of 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that District of Columbia’s law which banned its citizens from keeping a handgun in their home violated the Second Amendment, which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. When looking back on this case, it must be noted that the Supreme Court did not clearly define whether or not the Second Amendment applied to the States, since the District of Columbia is a federal territory, run solely by Congress. Fast forward to today in Oak Park, which is a suburb of Chicago, they have laws in place that ban almost all citizens from possessing a handgun. Otis McDonald, Adams Orlov, Colleen Lawson, and David Lawson filed a suit against the city, stating this ban has left them without a proper tool for self-defense against criminals, and that it violates their Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. By definition
First of all, let us look over what circumstances caused the Nixon vs. Condon case to reach the court. In 1927, the Supreme Court flattened the Texas law which prevented black people from taking part in the Democratic primary election of Texas, in the Nixon v. Herndon case. Not soon after that decision was made, the Texas Legislature removed the old law and substituted it for a new law. This new statute called for every single political party from that point on to "in its own way determine who shall be qualified to vote or otherwise participate in such political
Marriage Equality in Texas In the United States of America, there has been legislation concentrating upon marriage equality for same-sex couples. Predominantly in Texas, there has been legislation that has both supported and opposed marriage equality for same-sex couples. The following will examine the legislation of Texas, regarding marriage equality, in order to discuss the various sides of the issue. Firstly, the political issue of marriage equality in Texas has been an overwhelmingly predominant issue throughout the course of the past few decades. The state has also passed an abundance of legislation protecting as well as opposing same-sex marriage since the second half of the twentieth century.
To reinstate the death penalty, states had to satisfy the Eighth Amendment by removing all “discriminatory” and “arbitrary” effects. In a 5-4 decision, this case was so controversial that none of the five justices making a majority joined the opinion of the others; this means that there was no stated opinion of the court
The U.S Supreme Court ruled that the way Florida handed down death penalties was unconstitutional, after 2 months of being strike down they updated their law. The major reason why the structure was not working was the fact that the judged were handing down the death penalty while the jurors were used to advise. The new law made it so that receiving the death penalty became a difficult thing to do, soon after Florida changed their laws on the death penalty an Alabama judge throughout the death penalty for the same reason Florida was strike down for. The state of Alabama used the same method when it came down to giving the death penalty, judged would give it out while the jury would just advise. The state of Utah surprisingly removed the death penalty and no longer allows
One of the many overlapping Federal political police agencies created under Bush II as part of the suspension of the United States Constitution and the abrogation of American civil liberties which took place following the events of September 11th, 2001. The Department of Homeland Security seems to have done little during the time of the revolution beyond adding to the confusion. DM – “Drooling Moron.” Defamatory term used by certain white migrants during the pre-revolutionary times to denote white people born in rural areas of the Northwest Homeland. Always frowned upon and discouraged by the Party. Several legal cases are now before the National Honor Court to decide whether “DM” is to be considered a killing word or
Preclearance was a constitutional response to voter discrimination, but it was also unconstitutional to apply it to states based on past issues (Sensenbrenner, 2016). Thus, the law’s strongest protections have been rendered meaningless. Clearly they never heard of Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is when a dominant group uses its control of the government to abuse the rights of minority groups (Magstadt, p.78, 2015). Executing laws that place restrictions on minorities sounds all too familiar.