Court And Process : Constitutional Court

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

Brown v. Maryland (1827) confronted the issue of when state authority over interstate commerce terminated and federal authority commenced, having the central focus on the question of whether commodities at issue were still in their unique and original package—if so, then state authority did not end, but if not, then federal authority took over from them when the original package was unwrapped. In Marshall’s last and major constitutional case, Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the chief justice then rejected a dispute by a Marylander that the city of Baltimore had gone against the Fifth Amendment by a harbor-reconstruction program that ruined the worth of his wharf; Marshall declared that the ratifiers and framers of the federal Constitution’s Bill

By their actions, Griswold and Buxton violated a statute and were convicted as accessories and fined one hundred dollars each. However, Griswold and Buxton argued that the statutes violated the Fourteenth Amendment, which states “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” After both the Appellate Division of the Circuit

As the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment became the source of various other rights that were inherent to our system of freedoms and liberties, it also became the channel through which the amendments in the Bill of Rights became applicable to the states as well. The landmark case of Mapp V. Ohio is very important, because it set a legal precedent in the courts that held up Mapp’s rights guaranteed to her by the Constitution. This paper will examine the details of this case and trace the historical extension of the federal government's power over the states using the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights.

During the reconstruction a the 14th Amendment was passed, it protected the rights of the freedmen. Document A states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge [take away] the privileges or immunities of all citizens of the United States.” This was to protect the rights of the citizens of the United States’ rights and to avoid discrimination. This protects the citizens from the state government. Aslo in Document A it states, “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This segment states that all the citizens must have equal treatment from the government. These laws are still used today and are brought up in courts all over America.

Legitimacy of courts has long been an important factor in the judicial system. However, a more recent concern has been diversity. It is becoming increasingly important for the court to represent those who it serves. “The ECJ’s composition remains unreflective of the millions of black and migrant European Union citizens whom it serves”. Judgements of both the domestic courts of England and Wales along with the European Court of Justice, affect the everyday lives of all EU citizens – including those of minority and underrepresented groups. “Outcomes should not be influenced by considerations of political or financial consequences”. Independence is important as it is vital that each judge is able to decide cases solely on the evidence presented to them by the parties in court. Personal independence is always necessary to ensure that the judiciary as a whole of both the land or the community remains independent. In order for the courts to be fully independent, they must represent the diversity of the people and make decisions in accordance with the law with no other influences. With the growing influence of the government over the last century it has become increasingly important that the judiciary fulfils its responsibility to protect the public against unlawful acts of the government. What has therefore also become increasingly more important is the need for the judiciary to be completely independent from the government. The evidence suggests that the courts nowadays are not

In the Court Case Mapp V. Ohio (1961) Ohio police wanted to search Dollree Mapp’s Apartment to find proof of illegal betting among other things. They used a pretend warrant to search through his home after he told them no. After doing this they found evidence of child pornography and other things found in his apartment. When they went to trial the Judge ruled in favor of Mapp because his 4th and 14th amendment amendment was broken. He was allowed to walk free.

Barron v. Baltimore started in 1833. It was the Supreme Court decision that the Bill of Rights were restraining the national government. In the Supreme Court John Marshall declared that Mr. Barron did not have a claim against the stated because the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Constitution was intened to serve for the people of the United States. Marshall wanted it to apply only to the US government that was created by the Constitution, and not for the individual state’s government. Therefore, the states had filed constitutions that would only apply to them, which limited the power of the state government. Thusly, they interpreted the Fifth Amendment as limiting the power of the general government in which did not apply to the

Barron V. Baltimore (1833) is a significant case in history because it concluded that the fundamental rights provided by the Bill of Rights were not guaranteed by the state. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Baltimore, concluding hat the 5th amendment was limited and should be followed by the Federal government. Through this case, Supreme Court Justice John Marshall declared that the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government, not including the states. According to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, “government laws must not abridge upon the life, liberty, or property on an individual without just cause”. Because of the Due Process Clause in the 14th amendment, the decision in Barron V. Baltimore had been

Ferguson where a man named Plessy refused to move to the colored train cart. He was arrested for breaking a law in Louisiana that white and black must go in separate but equal train carts.After going to court he was later found guilty with the reasoning that the actions used were and holds the tradition and values of this state. A case similar to this is the Brown v. Board of Education which is a group of several cases throughout states like Kansas,Virginia,and Delaware where black children wanted to go into white schools. It violates the 14th amendment because it is known that during the 1940’s black schools had the lowest budget and there was a saying that if black people had a poor education then they would stay in their place in the class system segregation invented.There are many cases of this happening not only in schools but at jobs and communities. By having poor paying jobs and because of that living with bare necessities and not having a good education there was no way black people could have advanced in society to be not be looked down upon.There was also a belief that encouraged a poor education system was a belief that black kids weren’t intelligent enough to deserve a good

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

It was not until after the Civil War that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were enacted and began protecting individuals against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the principal means by which this protection has been accomplished. It reads, in part, “No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court had interpreted this guarantee of liberty to embrace the fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights, meaning that the state governments must observe and protect them to the same extent as the federal government this is also known called incorporation. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are said to be incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There has been an ongoing debate on the Supreme Court about the extent of incorporation, and whether the entire Bill of Rights, or only some of it’s guarantees, should be incorporated against the states.

In the earliest years, people such as Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had disagreements on how power should be held. The framers wanted to be sure that the states obeyed the federal government. During the last weeks of John Adams’ term he appointed a number of people to office. He appointed 3 people to the United States Supreme Court Justices, 16 people to the Circuit courts and 4 people to the District court's. So in end the judicial review is essential for the constitutional government because they can check if the laws are used correctly in the eyes of the constitution.

The legal process is very lengthy, but it attempts to ensure that the guilty, and innocent are treated in justifiable ways. Whom ever is charged stands in a trial, within reasonable time, with either a judge, jury, or both. If guilty, they are sent to a correctional facility in which they will serve the sentence stated by the judge, jury, or both. After their sentencing, they are released back into society. They can apply for an probationary release if they have been considered not to be a threat in the community, or to the lives of others. If innocent, the legal process can cause stress and worry about being wrongfully convicted for a crime one did not commit. If found innocent, the defendant is released immediately, and can go back to their families because noone would want to see an innocent person go through so much over something that they didn’t even do. It is exceptionally hard to try to judge a case with little, or no evidence, and this is usually the case with trials with a wrongful conviction. It is even more difficult to judge a trial of someone who are labelled as criminally insane. Criminally insane refers to the state of mind the defendant was in during the time of the criminal act. However these laws do not apply, for the most part, to those who are found unfit to stand trial, and they undergo a process of their own. During this process their innocence, or guilt becomes unclear, and the victims may begin to feel as though justice has not been done. In the

A constitutional system within a country could be classified as one of the most important structures for democracy; it should not only illustrate the structures and power of a government, but also state the relationship between government and individuals. Constitutionalism can be classified into two distinct categories: a codified written Constitutions (ie: United States), and an uncodified unwritten constitution (ie: United Kingdom). Some consider the UK constitution as a risk to the democratic society due to its flexibility and the chance of forming dictatorship. However, others believe that an uncodified constitution could be beneficial within a constant changing and developing society. Hence, rules and agreements could be easily modified and become up-to-date under an uncodified constitution, whereas, a codified Constitution is less flexible with complex amendment procedures and often seen as out-dated.