Analysis Of Miller 's ' Miller V ' Alabama '

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

Nearly 100 years after the 15th amendment was ratified, vast disparities and blatant discrimination in voting process and practice were still pervasive, particularly in certain southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted by congress to address this enduring inequity. Section 5 of the VRA requires that states meeting criteria set out in section 4(b) of the act, must obtain federal “preclearance” before enacting any laws that affect voting. Section 4(b) provides the conditions for the preclearance requirement as state or jurisdictions where less than 50% of minorities were registered to vote in 1964.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits voting discrimination. With the condition to receive preclearance stated in section 5 of the Act from the Department of Justice before making any changes affecting the voting process, also came four other prohibitions. The prohibition of literacy test or other similar test or devices as a prerequisite to voter registration is one prevention. The requirement of jurisdictions with significant language minority populations to provide non-English ballots and oral voting instructions is another. Third is the prohibition of vote dilution, which is the remapping of districts to suppress the minority vote. The final provision was one of the most controversial of the Act. It established the federal oversight

McCulloch vs. Maryland John Marshall was a prominent figure in the history of the United States as the man who helped shape the Supreme Court to the power it is today. His decisions strengthened the power of the federal government in period of growth for our new nation and established a greater purpose for the Supreme Court. Born September 24, 1755 in Virginia, he went on to attend the college of William and Marry, which became his only formal education. Early in the revolutionary war, he served under the Third Virginia Continental Regiment, rising through the ranks to lieutenant and captain.

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

Yes, each state should apply the Supreme Court ruling of Miller v. Alabama retroactively. There were two cases reviewed by the Supreme Court that determined their ruling. Evan Miller and his friend Colby Smith robbed, assaulted, and murdered Cole Cannon on July 15, 2003. Miller and Smith, age fourteen had been drinking and doing drugs the night the incident occurred. Miller and Cannon got into a fight over Miller stealing money from Cannon that lead to Miller repeatedly striking him with a baseball bat. After placing a sheet on Cannon and before striking him in the head for the last time, Miller states “I am God, I’ve come to take your life” (“Supreme Court”, 2011). To destroy the evidence, Miller and Smith set Cannon’s trailer on fire and left him to die.

John Adams appointed 200 men for 16 spots called the “midnight appointments” during the latter part of his presidency. The Organic Act allowed Adams to appoint 42 Justices of the Peace. Marshall as Adam’s outgoing secretary of state failed to deliver all of the commissions. The new secretary of state, Madison, refused to deliver five of the remaining commissions. Mr. Marbury and three others were denied their commission went straight to the Supreme Court to appeal.

In the 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder the state of Alabama filed a law suit against the federal government due to the unconstitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits certain districts from enacting new voting laws without the approval of the federal government while Section 4b prohibited them to make changes to voting laws based on race or social status. These laws were enacted due to discrimination and violence minorities were facing during the 1960’s. After the Supreme Court reviewed the case Justice Roberts delivered the concurring opinion in which they ruled the act as unconstitutional with the justification that conditions are not the same as they were in

Throughout history one can look through cases to find where race played a part tin the conviction and sentencing of a case. However, in the case of Georgia vs. Dixon did race play a part in convicting Dixon? Did the jury know what they were doing? Was the sentencing initial to give a harsher charge? By looking at the facts of the case, legally defining all the charges, and explain the outcome and the issues that surrounded the case one can answer the basis of these questions.

Montgomery vs Louisiana case referres to juveniles who obtain life sentence must be allowed parole opportunities. Additionally, the Miller v. Alabama's is basically implemented retroactively to Montgomery vs Louisiana. The Miller v. Alabama ruling concludes that juveniles acquiring “life without parole “is unconstitutional. These sentences include incidences such as homicide conducted by a juvenile delinquent. In addition, life without parole violates the “Eighth Amendment”. This amendment implies “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted” (Legal Information Institution). Therefore, Montgomery vs Louisiana was significant since juvenile delinquents fail acquiring fully developed brains until age twenty-five. Furthermore, juveniles obtaining life sentences must be reviewed for parole.

Was an argument between McCulloch vs Maryland. The argument was a battle between whether the constitution allows a national government to run a bank. As well as does the constitution allow state governments to tax a national bank operating within its borders? However the Supreme Court ruled in favor of banks being able to be built and run by the national government. However they ruled that state governments are unable to tax a national bank that is within their borders.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

In the Edwards v. South Carolina case a group of african-american protesters organised a peaceful march to the South Carolina State House and were confronted by a group of police who arrested the protesters for “breach of the peace” after they refused to disperse, and sang patriotic songs. The supreme court decided in favor of the protesters and said that the arrests violated the protesters First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

The movie Loving is based off of the court case Loving v. Virginia. Even after the Civil Rights act of 1964 that outlawed discrimination based on race, origin, and religion, had not yet edified the question of marriage. States, such as Virginia, still imposed a ban on interracial marriages. The charges against the protagonists, Mildred and Richard Loving, spiked my interest because of the enhanced step taken by society as was taken in modern times during the same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges. The court during the twentieth century was forced to question our evolving standards of decency and define our Constitutional rights given to us by Equal Protection and Due Process laws of the fifth and fourteenth amendment.

The laws that have been placed for individuals to follow by people in power, can sometimes overlap with their rights and affect the way they live in society. In the freedom and liberty documents, the Meyer v. Nebraska case came about the laws by some states restricting the teaching in foreign languages. The State of Nebraska was one of these states that wanted to impose English and restrict all foreign languages (like the child’s parents native tongue) to avoid children “to think in that language” (Meyer V. Nebraska and the meaning of Liberty, 147). Although Robert Meyer, the teacher being accused believed that this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment, the state of Nebraska believed otherwise. The Supreme Court of Nebraska fought against