The Pros And Cons Of After School Detention

In this case, there was “indication”, that “appropriate steps” were taken to revoke any implied licence. Moreover, any implied licence granted could be believed to extend only to the front door, where they may engage in “lawful communication” with the body corporate, which according to the material facts was not even attempted. On the other hand, the majority decision stated that “the law is not such an ass that the implied…license…is restricted to…stepping over the item of property or around the child”, so long as the “passer-by” holds “a legitimate purpose that in itself involves no interference with the occupier’s possession nor injury to the occupier...or their property” (pg8). Overall, a court would probably conclude that any licence the police held did not extend to the lawful apprehension of

Objections that the prosecution and/or defense should have been made. On page 1, line 22 the objection would be that under Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. Leading to the questioning of the witness to his point of view, of his reputation is the witness' statement of the point of view that is not permitted. On page 2, lines 12 and 13 with reference to the statement of the witness with respect to Mr. Michelson's “reputation is very good in the community...who will never start an argument and never hold a grudge against anyone”; Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a).

Allowing the nativity scene bulletin board to stay up in the school counselor’s room does provide Ms. Williams her right to freedom of speech as outlined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), the Supreme Court stated, “It can hardly be argued that students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Thus, the First Amendment rights of public school employees and students were affirmed. However, in Tinker the Supreme Court also ruled that this freedom of speech is not absolute. Plus, they stated that a school district should have weighty justification to censor speech.

The defense counsels can argue against the safeguard of accused before they are proved guilty with support of constitutional safeguards. The law enforcement officers cannot harass the accused or defame the accused because they are protected by the amendments in the constitution. The 4th Amendment states that unless there is warrant the house or accused cannot be searched. The law enforcement officers need to take permission before arrest or searching the accused.

The Tribunal Vice-chair’s decision to refuse Mrs. Ferjo’s previous adjournment was protected under The Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22. In addition the tribunal brought up the fact that Under Rule 13.1 of its Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal was able to dismiss an application that it had no jurisdiction over. Judicial immunity and judicial independence prohibited the tribunal of having the jurisdiction to review Mrs. Ferjo’s

One example of freedom of expression being contested in a court of law was the Pickering v. Board of Education case Where the U.S. Supreme Court held that in the absence of proof of the teacher knowingly or recklessly making false statements, the teacher had a right to speak on issues of public importance without being terminated from his position.

According to the United States Constitution, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Random drug test have no “probable cause” to support them, making them “unreasonable searches and seizures.” To carry them out, the school must have reliable and sure proof that the student is carrying or using drugs. Otherwise, they have no right to search the

She uses an example of the Department of Education which do not allow students to abuse the loophole. She explains, “The Department of Education prohibit the use of pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreement by for-profit schools. “Therefore, it would apply the same for Federal Trade Commission, which should not allow the IoT’s company to use “pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreement.” This gives her suggestion a strong support because it based on the regulation that already exist. By using comparison and contrast, the author promotes her

For example, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing ‘religion’. Meaning, they cannot create a national church or declare that Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism as the official religion of the United States of America. While procedural liberties are limits on how the government can act. For example, in America, in courtroom drama’s, there is a presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty. This presumption means, in criminal cases, jury’s and judges have to act as those the accused is innocent until the prosecution conviences them otherwise.

As stated earlier, Johnson is saying that there is no reason for inequality to take place where kids are trying to receive an education. In most cases, those students truly

Therefore, the Supreme Court is saying that in order for a fundamental right to be recognizable under Fourteenth Amendment, it must be defined by the Constitution. Regardless of the fact that a particular role should be executed by the government, does not establish it as fundamental right according to the decision. As referenced by Justice Powell, if it is not written explicitly in the Constitution, it is not a role of the government to guarantee it as a right of the people. The court’s decision that education is not a fundamental right under the United States Constitution refocused local control over school funding formulas.

The legal dispute taking place here is a dissension between the applicability of the Tenth and the Fourteenth Amendments in the case of hair length regulations. The Fourteenth Amendment provides citizens with equal protection from the law in the case of state ordinances. The Tenth Amendment which provides the public official the freedom to operate the school under his jurisdiction in the way he deems premier, free from federal involvement. Step 3: Decision and reasoning by the judge

In no way are the rules set by our government vague enough to let Hosni Nassef’s actions be considered to be okay and permissible. There would be no argument at all had the federal government been allowed to protect its people as it sees fit. The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990, which made it illegal for an individual to possess a firearm in a school zone, was established by our government to protect children from gun violence, which made perfect sense.

The case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District is an important piece of history regarding the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and how it applies to students ' right to freedom of speech. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech", and the Supreme Court has the job to judge whether or not the laws violate the Constitutional Amendments. The case was the result of three students suspended from school for wearing armbands protesting the Vietnam War. According the U.S. Supreme Court, students do not shed their rights as American citizens when the students enter the school, leading the students to wear what they desire as long as it does not disrupt class. The

167, 42 L.Ed.2d 134 (1974). which evaluated a similar Missouri provision in determining if the State could refuse to provide bussing services for parochial schools, the Court held that maintaining a wall between Church and State is a legitimate State interest sufficient to overcome an equal protection and free of religion argument. The State’s provision is constitutional under the Freedom of Religion Clause of the 1st Amendment because it does not discriminate between religious groups, since no group is eligible. The State is allowed to deny religious organizations funding from secular programs and benefits that are not widely and generally available to the public at large. The State only awarded 14 grants to carefully selected organizations, and the State had a rational basis for using religious