Background
An Interracial couple married outside of Virginia before shortly moving to Virginia. they then violated a bill that banned interracial marriage within the state of Virginia.
Issue
Is a law prohibiting interracial marriage a violation of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause?
Decision
It is indeed a violation of the 14th.
Majority: Clark, Warren, Black, Douglas, Harlan, Brennan, Stewart, White, Fortas
My Opinion
The law is most certainly in violation of the 14th amendment. According to the equal protection clause, "no state shall... deny to any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law". This mean that all laws shall be applied and enforced equally to all citizens of the United States. Therefore, this bill is, which only applies to certain people, must be tested with strict scrutiny. Upon review, there is no reason the state can present that allows this law to be seen as necessary "to a compelling end".
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Gonzales v. Carhart
Background
In 2003 the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed, passed, and enforced. The bill would deem would ban any partial birth abortions which was defined as an abortion where the fetus died while “the entire fetal head [...] or [...] any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother.
Issues
Does banning late term abortions cause an “undue burden” and therefore should be unconstitutional?
Decision
No, banning late term abortions is not unconstitutional.
Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
My Opinion
I agree with the justices’ decision. This bill does not cause “undue burden” upon a women seeking an abortion. It does not violate the privacy of a women due to the ability to have gotten an abortion earlier in the pregnancy, and is therefore constitutional.
Monday, May 6, 2013
Atkins v. Vriginia
Background
Atkins was accused and put on trial for armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder. Upon being tested, a forensic psychologist testified in court that Atkins was mildly mentally disabled.
Issue
Is the death penalty for the mentally disabled a violation of the 8th amendments prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment?
Decision
The execution of the mentally disabled is considered "cruel and unusual" and does therefore violate the 8th amendment.
Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor
Dissent: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
My Opinion
I agree that executing the mentally ill is a violation of the 8th amendments prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. According to one of the prongs when determining if a punishment is "cruel and unusual", the punishment must not be "clearly and totally rejected throughout society". This death sentence for the mentally ill, was unprecedented in the United States, and therefore, a lack thereof of such a punishment should be evidence that it is rejected through society.
Atkins was accused and put on trial for armed robbery, kidnapping, and murder. Upon being tested, a forensic psychologist testified in court that Atkins was mildly mentally disabled.
Issue
Is the death penalty for the mentally disabled a violation of the 8th amendments prohibition of "cruel and unusual" punishment?
Decision
The execution of the mentally disabled is considered "cruel and unusual" and does therefore violate the 8th amendment.
Majority: Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, O'Connor
Dissent: Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas
My Opinion
I agree that executing the mentally ill is a violation of the 8th amendments prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. According to one of the prongs when determining if a punishment is "cruel and unusual", the punishment must not be "clearly and totally rejected throughout society". This death sentence for the mentally ill, was unprecedented in the United States, and therefore, a lack thereof of such a punishment should be evidence that it is rejected through society.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Kennedy v. LA
Background
Kennedy was convicted of raping his step-daughter at the age of eight. He was sentenced to death but appealed the ruling saying that the age of the child should not matter.
Issue
Does putting somebody to death for child-rape violate the defendant's 8th amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment?
Decision
It does indeed violate the defendant's eighth amendment right if the rape did not intend to kill and did not result in killing the child.
Majority - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent - Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
My Opinion
Based upon the precedents set in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, I agree that he should not receive the death penalty. There is an evolving standard of decency set forth when referring to the death penalty. At the time, only five states had imposed the death penalty on convicts guilty of child rape. Therefore, five states does not constitute a national consensus and he should not receive the death penalty.
Kennedy was convicted of raping his step-daughter at the age of eight. He was sentenced to death but appealed the ruling saying that the age of the child should not matter.
Issue
Does putting somebody to death for child-rape violate the defendant's 8th amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment?
Decision
It does indeed violate the defendant's eighth amendment right if the rape did not intend to kill and did not result in killing the child.
Majority - Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent - Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito
My Opinion
Based upon the precedents set in Atkins v. Virginia and Roper v. Simmons, I agree that he should not receive the death penalty. There is an evolving standard of decency set forth when referring to the death penalty. At the time, only five states had imposed the death penalty on convicts guilty of child rape. Therefore, five states does not constitute a national consensus and he should not receive the death penalty.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Roper v. Simmons
Background
Simmons was given the death penalty at the age of 17 for the murder of Shirley Crook. He continued to appeal the case up the court system as each court continued to uphold the death penalty. Eventually, the supreme court decided to hear his case.
Issue
Is giving minors the death penalty a violation of the 8th amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment?
Decision
Giving the death penalty to minors does indeed violate the 8th amendment.
Majority- Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer
Dissenting- Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor, Thomas
My Opinion
According to Atkins v. Virginia, there is an "evolving standard of decency" with the death penalty. Although the execution of minors in history has been alright, at this point in time, the standard has evolved to the point where executing a minor is viewed upon as "cruel and unusual" and therefore Simmons should not receive the death penalty.
Simmons was given the death penalty at the age of 17 for the murder of Shirley Crook. He continued to appeal the case up the court system as each court continued to uphold the death penalty. Eventually, the supreme court decided to hear his case.
Issue
Is giving minors the death penalty a violation of the 8th amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment?
Decision
Giving the death penalty to minors does indeed violate the 8th amendment.
Majority- Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Breyer
Dissenting- Rehnquist, Scalia, O'Connor, Thomas
My Opinion
According to Atkins v. Virginia, there is an "evolving standard of decency" with the death penalty. Although the execution of minors in history has been alright, at this point in time, the standard has evolved to the point where executing a minor is viewed upon as "cruel and unusual" and therefore Simmons should not receive the death penalty.
Monday, April 15, 2013
Gideoncv. Wainwright
Background: The defendant: Gideon, was charged with breaking and entering. He lacked sufficient funds to hire a lawyer, and when he asked the court to appoint one for him, they refused.
Issue: Does not being provided with a lawyer violate ones' 6th amendment right to a fair trial and his right to due process?
Decision: By a 9-0 decision, the court decided that he did have the right to have an attorney represent him in court.
Opinion: I believe that one should always be allowed a lawyer to defend oneself in trial. If one is going to have a fair trial, then they should be allowed counsel by somebody familiar with the justice system. To not allow that puts the impoverished at a significant disadvantage when proving their innocence, and is therefore a must in order to have a fair trial.
Issue: Does not being provided with a lawyer violate ones' 6th amendment right to a fair trial and his right to due process?
Decision: By a 9-0 decision, the court decided that he did have the right to have an attorney represent him in court.
Opinion: I believe that one should always be allowed a lawyer to defend oneself in trial. If one is going to have a fair trial, then they should be allowed counsel by somebody familiar with the justice system. To not allow that puts the impoverished at a significant disadvantage when proving their innocence, and is therefore a must in order to have a fair trial.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Kyllo vs. United States
Background
A man was suspect by the police, of growing weed. In addition to staking out hjis house, they used thermal imaging to see if there was an abnormal amount of heat radiating from one area of his house. There was and the police used that information to obtain a warrant. Then they proceeded to enter the home and arrest the man.
Issue
Is thermal and infrared imaging a violation of an individual's right to privacy as protected by the 4th amendment?
Decision
Using thermal or infrared imaging does violate one's 4th amendment right.
Majority - Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent - Rehnquist, Stevens, O-Connor, Kennedy
My Opinion
I believe that using the thermal imaging did violate his 4th amendment right to privacy. Based on Katz vs. United States, information not obtainable through a routine search cannot be obtained without a warrant. In Katz's case his phone calls were wire tapped so the police could listen in on his conversation. The police could not have obtained that evidence with technology and therefore made the search unreasonable. Again we see technology being used to find special information in Kyllo's case, yet that search of his house was unreasonable; "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant," said Scalia while speaking for the majority. Therefore, the search was in fact unreasonable.
A man was suspect by the police, of growing weed. In addition to staking out hjis house, they used thermal imaging to see if there was an abnormal amount of heat radiating from one area of his house. There was and the police used that information to obtain a warrant. Then they proceeded to enter the home and arrest the man.
Issue
Is thermal and infrared imaging a violation of an individual's right to privacy as protected by the 4th amendment?
Decision
Using thermal or infrared imaging does violate one's 4th amendment right.
Majority - Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent - Rehnquist, Stevens, O-Connor, Kennedy
My Opinion
I believe that using the thermal imaging did violate his 4th amendment right to privacy. Based on Katz vs. United States, information not obtainable through a routine search cannot be obtained without a warrant. In Katz's case his phone calls were wire tapped so the police could listen in on his conversation. The police could not have obtained that evidence with technology and therefore made the search unreasonable. Again we see technology being used to find special information in Kyllo's case, yet that search of his house was unreasonable; "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant," said Scalia while speaking for the majority. Therefore, the search was in fact unreasonable.
Wednesday, March 6, 2013
District of Columbia v. Heller
Background
A group of citizens in Washington D.C. banded together to fight a law passed that made it mandatory for all guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled. They felt that the gun, being disassembled, would not serve its' purpose of protection.
Issues
Is it constitutional to pass a law mandating all guns in the home must be unloaded and disassembled?
Decision
In a 5-4 decision the high court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and the state cannot ban handguns altogether and that forcing the guns to be disassembled makes the gun useless in an emergency.
Majority- Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent- Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg Breyer
Opinion
I agree with the majority opinion in this case. According to U.S. v. Miller, the defendants were not allowed to posses the sawed-off shotgun because at that time, a sawed-off shotgun did not contribute to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." However, a handgun does contribute to a well regulated militia due to it being the very basic firearm. So according to U.s. V. Heller, they should be able to possess handguns.
A group of citizens in Washington D.C. banded together to fight a law passed that made it mandatory for all guns to be kept unloaded and disassembled. They felt that the gun, being disassembled, would not serve its' purpose of protection.
Issues
Is it constitutional to pass a law mandating all guns in the home must be unloaded and disassembled?
Decision
In a 5-4 decision the high court ruled that the law was unconstitutional and the state cannot ban handguns altogether and that forcing the guns to be disassembled makes the gun useless in an emergency.
Majority- Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito
Dissent- Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg Breyer
Opinion
I agree with the majority opinion in this case. According to U.S. v. Miller, the defendants were not allowed to posses the sawed-off shotgun because at that time, a sawed-off shotgun did not contribute to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." However, a handgun does contribute to a well regulated militia due to it being the very basic firearm. So according to U.s. V. Heller, they should be able to possess handguns.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)