Basis of Appeal Gault is claiming for an appeal due to his 14th amendment right being violated of improper due process. In addition, Gault was not given proper notice of hearing and was not given proper representation. Also, Gault was not given the chance to face his accuser for the judge states that Mrs. Cook did not need to be present because she already spoke with the authorities. In conclusion, Gault ‘s conviction should be reversed based on improper due process that violates the 14th amendment.
Justice Thomas did not concur or descent in this case but instead chose to abstain from ruling on the case due to the fact that his son was a cadet at VMI at the time of the case (Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2015b). Doing this, Justice Thomas made sure his personal opinions and thoughts would not influence his decision and therefore he upheld the integrity of the Supreme
The Supreme Court did not share Lincoln’s opinion. Especially, the Chief Justice Roger Taney who, in his role as the federal circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional in a decision called Ex Parte Merryman. He did so after his recommendation for a trial of Merryman in order to determine if there were any legitimate reasons for his arrest met if refusal form Merryman captors. In the end, The President ignored Taney ruling, and Congress never contested Lincoln’s Habeas Corpus decision. Lincoln also met with strong resistance form the general public in regards to his executive order.
Because the jury did not favor black men, Tom Robinson did not receive a fair trial, although Atticus made a great case. Segregation directly disobeys the fourteenth amendment, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Maycomb Alabama is where the story, To Kill a Mockingbird takes place. Tom Robinson’s trial out come was not based on factual evidence. Mayella was lying to the jury, while Tom was completely innocent.
Facts Amendment 2 was added to Colorado’s Sate constitution by a statewide referendum it prohibited the state or local government from adopting measures that protect homosexuals as a class from discrimination. Richard Evans, a homosexual works for Denver Mayor brought a law suit against Romer the Governor of Colorado State on the grounds that Amendment 2 was unconstitutional. Issue Does Amendment 2 of Colorado’s State constitution discriminate against homosexual orientation?
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. Do some just turn a blind eye to what is written in our constitution?
To understand what I mean by this I will create a hypothetical to show when the court should rule each way. In the first scenario, Dale as an assistant scoutmaster teaches his troop that homosexual activity is condoned and acceptable which directly breaks the objectives of the scout’s organization. Thus, the BSA can terminate Dale on the grounds of violating their expressive rights as protected in the first amendment. However, in the real events, where Dale did not use his position as assistant scoutmaster to advance his cause and only advocated for gay rights in his capacity as a private citizen the scouts had no basis for terminating Dale without punishing him for his actions and words which is a violation of his freedom of speech. To simplify my position into one line: The expressive rights of an organization is only protected over that of an individual when an individual actively undermines the organization (i.e., use the organization as a means to extend
Racial profiling is a serious problem as we have witnessed in the last few years in cases such as Oscars, Trayvon Martin and Sandra Bland. An even more serious issue is the ability of our law enforcement to get away with such heinous crimes. Oscar was guilty of committing a crime by fighting, yes, but the officer did not know who the suspect was and assumed Oscar was involved. Once he made the assumption of Oscar’s involvement, he then proceeded to speak toward Oscar with uneasiness and prejudice. From what the film shows, there were no witnesses so the officers had no basis of arresting Oscar and his friends.
People take advantage of Amendment One by verbally hurting someone purposely or they will state false facts. The Constitution does not protect these acts at of abuse. For example Amendment Two states that “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.” Although United States citizens have the right to bear arms, some people choose to use this law to commit crimes such as murder or robbing banks. To use one law to violate another does not make logical sense whatsoever, and committing a crime based on the Constitution is not protected in the Constitution.
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
In Bell v. Wolfish, the Supreme Court had to determine if violations of the eight amendments had occurred under the “punitive intent standard” which distinguishes between incarceration and detainment. The court also had to determine if any violations of the eighth amendment had occurred which resulted in cruel and unusual punishment being inflicted upon the inmates who were primarily housed as pretrial detainees. The case alleged that within a new constructed federal jail in New York City
Case Briefs: Case: State v. Marshall, 179 S.E. 427 (N.C. 1935). Opinion by: Stacy C.J. Facts: A homicide occurred at the defendant’s filling station. At the filling station the deceased was previously drinking and was sweet talking the defendant’s wife in a whispering conversation. The deceased was asked to leave the building, yet the defendant order him more than once.
In 1986, the U.S. supreme court ruled to uphold the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing anal and oral sex in private between consenting adults, marking a legal precedent allowing individual states to freely enforce sodomy statutes of their own. This supreme court case, Bowers v. Hardwick, began when Michael Hardwick was found by police having oral sex with another man when they entered his home. Hardwick was charged with sodomy, a felony in Georgia. A preliminary hearing was held with Hardwick, as a self-described practicing homosexual, asserting that the anti-sodomy statute placed him in imminent danger of arrest. He filed suit in Federal District Court, arguing the statute was unconstitutional.
Goldman v Weinberger is a case in which Goldman sued Weinberger because his freedom of religion was not exercised in the United States Air force. Goldman sued him because his religion called for him to wear a yarmulke to show that God was the highest form of life. For years he wore the accessory. He was later told to take off the accessory and he refused the proposal. A couple of days later “ In 1981 he was required to testify as a defense witness at a court-martial ” according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldman_v._Weinberger .
Plessy v Fergusen was yet another court case where “separate but equal” was not implementing equality. It showed that they still thought of Black men and women as being less and not deserving the same rights as the White men. Homer Plessy was a free man, that was mainly White and because of a percentage he had of being Black he was treated as a Black man. He tried to sit in the train car of the White men and much like Rosa Parks was asked to go to the back where the Black men belonged in a different car. This case resulted in the Supreme Court defending the decision of the East Louisiana Railroad stating that they weren't violating any law by the ruling they had.