The Case Of US Vs. Lopez

In Gonzales v. Raich the legal issue facing the court is whether Congress has the power, through Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, to “prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law.”

In the case of Riley V. California, Mr. Riley was stopped on a traffic violation, which led to his arrest on weapons charges. The officer searching Riley’s incident to arrest seized a cell phone form Riley’s possession. There was information on the phone and repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. Hours later a gang detective examined the phone’s digital contents and based in part on photographs and videos found, the State charged Riley in connection with a shooting that occurred a few weeks earlier. They sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership. He was ultimately charged with connection to an earlier shooting, firing at an occupied vehicle, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, and attempted murder. Riley

On October 15, 1975 Nine students were suspended from Central High School from Columbus, Ohio. They had destroyed school property and disrupting students from learning and were suspended for 10 days.One of the students amoung them was Dwight Lopez. It was required that the student's parents be informed of the suspension within 24 hours with given reason. If the student were expelled, they would allowed to appeal to the Board of Education. The principal gave the students suspension without holding a hearing, it was okay because Ohio law did not make it required to do so.But they were also later expelled without a right to have due process. The federal courts believed that the students rights were being violated.The District Court held Central High School accountable for its violation of the 14th Amendment, it stated that

The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."

“Elastic Clause”. This clause is also often referred to as the “necessary and proper” or the “sweeping” clause. It can be found in article 1, section 8 of the constitution, clause 18. The “elastic clause” puts forward that Congress has the power to pass any law that they have deemed to be both necessary and proper to implement the powers that have already been delegated to the Congress. (U.S Const., art. I, §8). In essence, this clause offers a way for the US Congress to “achieve its’ constitutional mandated ends”(The Heritage Foundation, 2011). The purpose of this clause to allow the organisation of the government, while also helping to effectuate the power of Congress, and in doing so it introduces a great deal of flexibility to the constitution.

The Second Amendment protects the right of people to keep and bear arms. This amendment was a controversial among different people in the government. It was between letting the people keep their weapons or to not let the people keep their weapons. This amendment was important to the framers of the Constitution because it provided the country with a well-regulated militia. The Second Amendment 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." Some reasons why this amendment was made are that the framers wanted adults to know how to use a weapon and to be ready to use a weapon if they were attacked. During this time, the British troops were still attempting to overtake the new land, one of the ways they did this was by attempting to take the people’s guns. There was still reason to believe that British would still attack the new country and the United States did not have a real army, so any military action needed to be responded to by

power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do

United States v. Virginia is an equal rights case that argued whether it was constitutional for Virginia Military Institute (VMI) to deny women the opportunity to attend the all male Institute purely because of their genders (U.S. v. Virginia, 1996). Virginia was accused of violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and trying to make an all female institution as a substitute for not accepting women (U.S. v. Virginia, 1996). In response Virginia created the Virginia Women’s Institute for Leadership (VWIL) as a female alternative located at the already all female Mary Baldwin College (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Is the creation

The following essay will outline the variances of two case” Illinois v. Gates and Spinelli v. United States. It will discuss the Supreme Court requires to establish probable cause for a warrant.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) was a Supreme court case deciding whether or not flag burning is supported by “symbolic speech” protected by the first amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson is caught burning the American flag in Dallas, Texas in 1989 to protest Ronald Reagan`s policies. When Johnson had burned the flag during the protest the state of Texas arrested him for desecrating a venerated object. Although Johnson did not hurt or threaten to hurt anyone witnesses and spectators claimed to be seriously offended by seeing Johnson burn the flag. Most of the people in the courtroom were sided with Gregory Johnson supporting the fact that flag burning is considered as symbolic speech which is protected by the first amendment. The case was wrapped up

There is a glass of water filled halfway with water sitting on a table. Is the glass half empty or half full? Many people have heard this divided interpretation of a glass of water before and have differing views of whether it is half full or half empty. Yes, a glass of water is not a huge issue the country is facing, however, there is another issue this country is facing currently with the same principle that is escalating with time. Everyone learned in school about the bill of rights and about the amendments of the Constitution, which states every United States citizen’s basic human rights. Recently, the second amendment, the right to bear arms, has been under intense scrutiny and misinterpretation of this amendment is a growing problem spreading

The second amendment is probably the most controversial amendment in the Bill of Rights. The second amendment is stated in the Bill of Rights as, “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"(“Second Amendment”) This could mean that you have the right to possess a small gun for self-defence purposes only, but the real meaning is a very controversial argument. Focusing on this amendment is important because it is a very disputed amendment still debated today. There have been many cases where the Supreme Court has had to make a decision, and most of the time it is an almost split decision.

GOSS v. LOPEZ, Supreme Court of the United States, 1975. 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42, L.Ed.2d 725 deals with students that were suspended. The Columbus Ohio Public School System (CPSS) was sued by students. Nine students claimed that they were suspended without being given a hearing before their suspension, or even after their suspensions were over. Ohio law requires that the parents of suspended students are to be notified within 24 hours of the suspension, and the principal must state the reasons for the suspension. Six of the nine students attended school at Marion-Franklin High School. They were suspended for disruptive and disobedient behavior. Two others, Dwight Lopez and Betty Crome, attended Central High School and McGuffey Junior High School. They were suspended for an incident in the school lunchroom that caused some property damage. Again, all students claimed their rights to the due process clause of the 14th amendment were violated. The major purpose of the due process clause is for a person to be heard. It basically gives a person the chance to defend accusations that are being made against them. It clearly states that students must be given some type of prior notice, and they must be given some type of arena to hear and defend those accusations.

Discrimination and lack of justice for immigrants is an issue that has faced the United States for many decades with little being done to resolve the problem. The case of Hernandez vs. the State of Texas is one such case which addressed the issue of civil rights of Mexican-Americans during the period after the World War II. Pete Hernandez, one of the immigrant workers, was accused of killing one Joe Espinosa in Edna, the state of Texas, the county of Jackson in the year 1950. There was no Mexican that had been part of the jury for over 25 years. Gustavo Garcia represented the defendant without payment. This case was viewed as a challenge to the jury which did not include Mexicans and the final verdict that Hernandez was guilty did not come

In June 2008, the Supreme Court was asked in District of Columbia v. Heller to consider whether a District of Columbia provision that made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the general registration of handguns was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. The petitioner, Dick Heller, was a D.C. special police office authorized to carry a handgun on duty. Heller sued the District of Columbia for violating his Second Amendment right when his one-year application to keep his handgun at home for personal use was denied. Arguably the most controversial amendment of the constitution in present-day, the Second Amendment reads, “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right