Baker V. Carr Case Summary

1.  Able entered into an oral contract with Baker for the sale of Able 's car for $5,000. Later Baker breached that contract. Able wants to sue to enforce the contract. Under the Statute of Frauds, who is the "party to be charged" in this case?

Few facts about the case is that this case was related back and forth to the Reynolds v. slims (1964) cases which is the cases where the “one person, one vote” developed. This case brought up many questions such as Is it even feasible to move from total population to eligible voter standard? What is the basic constitutional value that one person, one vote serves? Some were against the case some were not but the ones who were, were mostly people that did not live in cities. Some argument was that they saw no issue and then others saw it as a problem. Furthermore, due to the fact that Texas uses total population in each district, it created an issue with both Texas residents Sue Evenwel and Edward Pfenninger.

On the fourth of July in 1776 the United States became an independent nation. At that point in time, the foundation for a formal legal system was put into place. One of the oldest sources of law is the common law, which dates back to the colonial days. In the case of Davis v. Baugh, the common law rule was used in the first court trial. Common law refers back to precedent cases of similar disputes and assists the judge in making a decision after comparing both cases. Utilizing this ruling to resolve disputes in court is very helpful because it provides uniformity in court. This rule also provides an expectation of what the verdict will be based off the prior cases. Most importantly, common law allows the judge to remain neutral without the implication of personal bias on each case (Meiners, 2012, pp. 9-10).

Extreme sumarization of r v brown( key point of arguments used by the five judges)

This case deals with the Plaintiff's expulsion from his position as Assistant Scoutmaster in a Boy Scouts of America (henceforth called "BSA") troop due to his status as an active homosexual. Dale, the Plaintiff, was serving as an Assistant Scoutmaster in 1990, when, due to a local newspaper article, it was discovered by officials in the local Monmouth BSA Council that he was an active homosexual. A letter was sent to Dale by the Council, notifying him of their decision to revoke his membership in the organization. Dale sent a letter in response, asking why this action was taken. The Council then notified Dale that his homosexual activities made him ineligible for membership in the BSA, as well as making

This case, Bowers v. Hardwick, originated when Michael Hardwick was targeted by a policer officer for harassment in Georgia. A houseguest of Hardwick's let the officer into his home, where Hardwick was found engaging in oral sex with his partner, who was another male. Michael Hardwick was arrested and charged of sodomy. After charges were later dropped, Hardwick brought his case to the Supreme Court to have the sodomy law declared unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court refused to enter into the political process of redistricting in Colegrove v. Green() stating, “Courts ought not to enter this political thicket.”() In Baker v. Carr() twenty years later, the Court changed its mind, entering the redistricting arena. Ever since entering the “political thicket,” the Court has continuously failed to find a “judicially discernible and manageable standard” of the legality of gerrymandering. ()

Justice Williams also commented “The framers of the Constitution intended the states to keep for themselves, as provided in the Tenth Amendment, the power to regulate elections” Within the opinion of the Supreme Court, it was mentioned that all states should enjoy equal sovereignty, and under Section 4(b) this was not possible and it went against the sovereignty of the states. Chief Justice Roberts mentioned in his opinion “ At the sane time, voting discrimination still exists; no one doubts that. The question is whether the Act’s extraordinary measures, including its disparate treatment of the States, continue to satisfy constitutional requirements. As we put it a short time ago, the Act imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs”

In the past, the Supreme Court took up the matter of gerrymandering to determine its legality (Stankiewicz). Stankiewicz described two instances when he stated the following:

To facilitate exploring a specific anti-gay defense, I locate this statute within its homophobic political

Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark case that was decided by the Supreme Court of America in 1954. It is a case that is believed to have brought to an end decades of increasing racial segregation that was experienced in America’s public schools. The landmark decision of this case was resolved from six separate cases that originated from four states. The Supreme Court is believed to have preferred rearguments in the case because of its preference for presentation of briefs. The briefs were to be heard from both sides of the case, with the focus being on five fundamental questions. The questions focused on the attorneys’ opinions about whether Congress viewed segregation in public schools when it ratified the 14th amendment (Benoit, 2013). Changes were then made to the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

Racial gerrymandering is also a conflict to the XIV Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because the district maps in Virginia’s case favors whites over African-Americans, giving them more votes in legislation of districts. African Americans don’t have an equal representation because of how the districts were drawn. Although the African-American population in Virginia isn’t much compared to the white population, that does not mean that the number of African-Americans should consist of one commonwealth representative. This exemplifies how African-Americans’ chance to obtain such a political position in Virginia is unfair as a result of gerrymandering.

Analysts explained: This ruling of the Supreme Court gave 9 states power to make their own election law, which overthrew the essential principle of the Voting Rights Act. The Court believed that the decision was right because the American society had changed: “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy the problem speaks to current conditions” (Mears & Botehlo). Right after the ruling, ‘Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval” (Liptak). This ruling brought strong opposition, the main reason being that the Voting Rights Act had benefited the United States profoundly by protecting people who were fighting for their equal rights. Opponents pointed out that there were still people fighting for their

Hair Connection: Officers found hair clenched in the victim's hand, that was sent to a lab in Texas to be tested. The DNA showed that the hair belonged to Frank wright who was listed as a suspect, because an outside witness had seen Wright and Anagnos fighting in the bar earlier that day.