Constitutional Law: Final Case Scenario

The legal issue in this case is whether the interest of the Crafts in receiving gas was a property interest protected by the due process clause. The applicable law that applies to the facts of this case is the due process clause which provides a guarantee of protection against the loss of property or rights without the chance to be heard. In the case Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division v. Craft the Tennessee residents were right in contending that they had been denied due process of law because their gas service was terminated due to a misunderstanding,

1.A law that restricts a fundamental right violates substantive due process unless it promotes a compelling or overriding state interest. TRUE

Refer to Table 1-1 of The American Democracy, and in 100 to 150 words, identify and explain America’s 3 core political ideals and the 3 rules of American politics.

The Joseph Hurtado v. People of California case (110 U.S 516) began on January 22, 1884 and was decided on March , 1884, was between the plaintiff, Joseph Hurtado, and the defendant, California. Hurtado appealed against the conviction proclaiming that he was not indicted by a grand jury based on due process in the Fourth Amendment. The question presented was, “To what principle, then, are we to resort to ascertain whether this process, enacted by congress, is due process?” The amendments that being trialed was the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment.

Fourteenth Amendment due process clause essentially forcing state governments to accept the decision rendered in McDonald

Facts: The city of New London approved a new development plan to build a new hotel and marina in hopes of revitalizing its economy and infrastructure. New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity planned to use the state approved $5.35-million-dollar bond issue to purchase the land needed to build. With approval from the state the NLDC began purchasing properties from willing sellers and use eminent domain to acquire the rest of the properties. Condemnation proceedings later began and petitions argued that they were condemned because they were located in the development area. The Superior Court agreed and granted a permanent restraining

Court and process: Constitutional Court ruled that the law is the prerogative of the federalism, not only reconciliation state governments. The state of government did not agree that would be their responsibility for repaid Mr. Barron. The chief justice John Marshall thought that this is not the states problem, and there is nothing to do in the side of the city of Baltimore. Mr. Barron insists that is in the faith amendment and it should be until the bill of right of the state government, and the federal government were unsure of the faith amendment was so clear. However, after the civil war the state of government made the fourth amendment that the state can’t take any bill of rights from the citizen.

The delegates of 1787, gathered at a convention in Philadelphia to try and revise the existing government, but almost immediately threw out the Articles of Confederation when an entirely new document emerged. It became the known system called federalism, in which a strong national government with a clear separation of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial branches functioned alongside state governments with clearly designated responsibilities. Along with arguments about how best to ensure the rights of individual states were to be protected and how “the people” would be represented in congress were also resolved by establishing a senate with equal representation for each state, and a House of Representatives for the number of delegates was determined by population counts (Shi 2015 pg. 218). However, many of the delegates during the period of the ratification of the U.S. Constitution had widely different ideas about how each of the independent countries should be organized and run, including George Mason and Ben Franklin.

In the case of Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) Mr. John Barron (Plaintiff), sued the city of Baltimore, Maryland (Defendant) for taking his property without compensation. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had ruined his wharf in the Baltimore Harbor by redirecting the streams by depositing around the wharf sand and earth cleared from a road construction project (1). The plaintiff argued that the city’s activities had made the waters around the wharf too shallow to dock most water crafts. As a result, the plaintiff felt his Fifth Amendment right had been violated because the government took his property without just compensation. The state court of Maryland ruled that the city of Baltimore had unconstitutionally disadvantaged

The Constitution has governed the United States for nearly 200 years. It has been the subject of controversy since its genesis. There was a need to expand powers of the central government in order to enforce and better regulate foreign affairs, conduct war and regulate currency across the states. State representatives struggled to divide power fairly between the states and the central government. The main controversy was similar to the original reason the confederation declared its independence from England. Representation.

To the extent that Plaintiff’s complaint is intended to be construed as an allegation that the Defendants violated their own policies, procedures, rules, regulations or state law, a mere violation of State law or regulation does not provide a basis for a due process violation. See, e.g. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137, 146 (1979) (“Just as ‘[m]edical malpractice does not become a constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner,’ false imprisonment does not become a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment merely because the defendant is a state official.”); see also Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327 (1986) (an official’s negligence does not give rise to due process claim); Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (defamation by a governmental official does not itself give rise to a due process claim); Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. for City of Baltimore, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir.

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, Homer Plessy was arrested for refusing to sit in a Jim Crow car. In this case, the Due Process Clause was addressed when the “separate but equal” doctrine was introduced. Because the “separate but equal” doctrine upheld the constitutionality of segregation, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment was not violated. In addition, the Due Process Clause also enforced equality of the two races. As well as the Due Process Clause, the Equal Protection Clause was addressed in this case because “states could not deprive any person of the Equal Protection Clause”(wikipedia). In Plessy’s arguments, he stated that segregated facilities violate the Equal Protection Clause, and because of what the Equal Protection Clause states,

The Constitution of the United States of America is an ever re-interpreted document that is contested daily in council rooms and in courts across the land; It was made to be that way. The constitution works because it is open to evolution. For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because it’s framers wanted to balance between the national government and the rights of states. The Constitution evolves to meet the needs of a world different from the eighteenth-century one in which it was created.

Is the United States Constitution a sacred and absolute document? Dahl (2001) argued that the Constitution is not perfect or permanent in his book, How Democratic is the American Constitution. He stresses that his main aim is not to propose that the Constitution must be amended, but to facilitate readers in changing how they think about the Constitution. In order to help people rethink the Constitution, Dahl (2001) explained the limitations of its Framers and the Constitution’s not widely known undemocratic aspects. The strengths of the book are its ethos or reputation of the author that establishes his credibility, informal writing style that can appeal to more people, its consideration of a number of undemocratic aspects of the

In this essay I will try to explain and critique the two dominant methods of constitutional interpretation. Which are originalism and non-originalism. I will do this by taking help from “How to Read the Constitution” by Christopher Wolfe, and different source’s from Internet. I will start by giving what Wolfe says originalism is, and then I will give some background to other ways to interpret the constitution, and the founders and interpretation and I will finish up with my view on originalism and non-originalism and the critics to that.