Charles Baker V. Carr Case Study

The decision carried out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education did wonders for the civil rights movement. By ending legal segregation and robbing it of its moral legitimacy, Brown showed that the law was on the side of black Americans. Political cartoons for as long as they have existed, have enabled the public and those less literate to stay informed on current cases and political events. With a (lower literacy rate) compared to those of their white American counterpart, these political cartoons were an excellent way to convey the importance of the Brown v. Board case in a visual rather than written way.

Resident of Shelby County, Tennessee, Charles Baker filed a suit against the Secretary of State Joe Carr. Baker`s complaint alleged that the Tennessee legislature had not redrawn its districts since 1901 in violation of the Tennessee Constitution. Baker then living in the urban area asserted that since the legislature had not been changed in over 10 years this would then affect his vote which would be a violation of the Equal Protection Clause stated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Baker`s objective was to sought after an injunction stopping further elections and reapportionment.

carr. At matter in Baker was a ancient Tennessee allotment. Rendering to Tennessee electorates, the outmoded distribution was a hushed gerrymander. Even though the residents in urban voting districts had amplified, Tennessee had no alterations to replicate this populace shift; therefore, sporadically occupied rural regions had the identical representation in the local administration as did tightly populous city districts. The local Court in Baker did not influence a result on the cogency of the Tennessee districting; this issue recognized only that the matter of districting was fare and not purely a political

(1962) this was a landmark decision that decided that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, therefore the federal courts had to intervene and decide redistricting cases. It resulted in the defendants being unsuccessful. This case said that the law upheld by the Tennessee Constitution regarding the establishment of districts was a violation of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution. It has to do with the equal protection clause; this clause forces every individual citizen of the United States to be treated equally and without bias with regard to their pursuit of happiness. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow the government to infringe on the individual person’s rights to pursue a happy

Baker vs. Carr: This case established that federal courts were allowed to intervene in voter redistricting. This relates to this unit because it discusses certain powers and which powers belong to which branch. This is significant to American government because this decision made many states redistrict because many urban populations were not fully representative. This made sure equal representation under the law was in action and that each person has one vote and an important voice. This also helps prevent corruption and unconstitutional borders; it allows the federal government to intervene.

Federal courts have jurisdiction to hear a constitutional challenge to a legislative appointment. Judicial standards under the equal protection clause were well developed and had been open to courts since the enactment of the fourteenth amendment. In order to determine if an act is arbitrary and reflects no-policy the decision of Baker v. Carr was one of the most wrenching in the Court's history. The Baker decision forced not only Tennessee but many other states to redistrict in the 1960s. Finally giving urban areas the representative their populations deserved. It also established the concept of one person, one vote forcing states to ensure that districts were as evenly populated as possible. The Constitution was silent with respect to numerical proportionality between districts. Baker v. Carr addressed this aspect of malapportionment. Malapportionment means that a state or political unit poorly appoints someone. To ensuring that districts had equal numbers they made this a priority. Expanding upon the topics of representation, demonstrating a nuanced understanding of the difficulty of creating equally populated districts. While meeting the requirements of the

Julie Thumston intentionally caused or attempted to create bush fires, the seriousness of the crime is because it can cause extensive damage to property and cause loss of life.

I, Jason Tison, am writing this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier.

In order for the State of Oklahoma to find an individual incompetent to Stand Trial it requisites a "clear & convincing" proof of 75% percent or higher to discover an individual who has committed a felony incompetent to stand trial (IST). Byron Keith Cooper was accused of murdering an 86 year old lady. At the time of his trial he started talking to someone or something that no one else could see or hear while he was bending down in a fetal position (Cooper v. Oklahoma, 1996).

Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens claimed that a 1901 law aimed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was practically disregarded. Baker's suit described how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored substantial economic progress and population changes within the state. The plaintiff contested the malapportionment of state legislatures under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court did not agree and held that the state legislature was responsible for such a decision. Specifically, the court held that the question was a political one. The plaintiff appealed.

In this case yes it was reasonably foreseeable and violated state dram shop laws (Melvin, 2015). Nevertheless, under the dram shop statute, a person who provides alcoholic beverages to another person is immune from civil liability for damages caused by the drunkenness of that person unless the provider is licensed to dispense such beverages and the person to whom the beverages are provided is a drunken person(www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2610778/gonzales-v-kruegerOpinion for, 799 P.2d 1318). A drunken person *1320 is a person whose conduct is substantially and visibly impaired as a result of alcohol ingestion. There were two related arguments presented by Safeway as to why it cannot, as a matter of law, be civilly liable for Gonzales' injuries.

The government has changed through the years, from when our country first decided to make actions till now. People have more rights, there are more laws, and we are all treated equally to an extent. We tend to ask ourselves, how the government started. In this essay I will discuss implied powers, the 10th amendment, and the McCulloch vs. Maryland case.

Alabama’s state constitution calls for a reapportionment every ten years. But, in 1961 the state had not been reapportioned since 1901. This upset many Alabama residents. Roughly one-fourth of the state’s population could vote for the majority of the state senators and representatives. Finally, M.O. Sims and many other residents of Jefferson County, Alabama challenged the apportionment of the state legislature. They sued state officials in federal district court stating that this malapportionment denied them equal voting rights. They believed that this imbalance diluted their votes. They argued that some ratios of people to legislatures were as high as fourteen to one in senate districts and up to sixteen to one in the lower house.

Baker V. Carr Case #1. 1962. Summary: The main importance of this case was that the Supreme Court decided that this was, in fact, a question that the courts could decide. Once the Supreme Court opened the doors to this kind of lawsuit, then, later cases resulted in the Court requiring states to redraw their districts so that all citizens would have equal representation. Issue: existing apportionment denied voters of urban areas equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Decision: The Court reformulated the political question doctrine.

This paper will discuss the potential rulings given by the justices of the Supreme Court concerning the case of Kansas v. Carr, Kansas v. Gleason on the upcoming Supreme Court docket for OT 2015. The case pertains to two separate criminal cases coming from the Kansas Supreme Court that may overturn the death penalty ruling. First, the facts of the case will be given and what are the legal issues being questioned, a brief overview of the arguments encompassing the Eighth Amendment, supportive arguments and amici for the petitioner and respondent, and then what the rulings will mean if they are dismissed or maintained by the majority. Secondly, an opinionated prediction will be given on how the each Justice may rule concerning the case of Kansas v. Carr, Kansas v. Gleason. Also, the prediction will include an intertwining review of the biographical background, legal experience, and judicial philosophy of the current Court as supporting points to the opinion of how the individual Justices will rule. Before concluding, there will be other alternative ruling assessments to cover all the bases in case it is not a majority vs dissenter ruling.