Fitzgerald V. Nixon Case Brief Summary

　　　　There were two Justices, McLean and Curtis, who disagreed. They argued that once the Court determined it had no jurisdiction to hear case, it had to dismiss it, not make a ruling. They also felt there was no Constitutional basis for the claim that blacks could not be citizens. When the Constitution was ratified, black men could vote in five of 13 states. This made them citizens of their states as well as the U.S (The Supreme Court)

In life decisions are made and whether they are good or not is determined by future generations. In the case of Worcester vs. Georgia, the Indian Removal Act was set not to be passed. Our president Andrew Jackson challenged the authority of the Judicial branch, as once they made their decision, he challenged their power to enforce it. Thus, violating the system of checks and balances, which is considered unconstitutional. The act was then passed, leading to the removal of the Indians, during the removal process hundreds of innocent indians died and were killed, on a path now known as the trail of tears. The Indian Removal Act was a step in the wrong direction because it led many Native Americans into suffering, the decision for the act violated the system of checks and

Article III, Section II of The Constitution states, “In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers or Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction…” The Supreme Court is where the nation’s most controversial cases end up, and where decisions that impact the future of America are made. Every year, only about 80 cases are heard by the Supreme Court (“U.S. Supreme Court,” 2016). Each case meets a set of four criteria, all of which must be met in order to be considered by the Supreme Court justices. The first, and most important, criteria is a circuit split. This means that there was a serious conflict of law in the lower courts and the Supreme Court feels that this case is detrimental to the law (“Supreme Court Criteria,” 2016). The second of the four is that it must be a highly important case to the American future, such as U.S. v. Nixon on the Watergate scandal, Roe v. Wade on abortion, and Bush v. Gore on the close presidential race of 2000. The third requirement is that a justice is relatively interested in the case. They want the controversial, detrimental cases that will be ambitious. The case is to be highly considered if in the lower courts, a supreme court decision that has already been decided upon was denied. (“How Does the U.S.,” 2013). If all four criteria are met, then the case is fair game in the eyes of the Supreme Court justices.

Supreme Court ruled that Nixon was being unconstitutional. This is undoubtedly true due to the

In 2009, Obama signed an executive order that signalled the closing of Guantanamo Bay. However, Congress blocked bills that would have given the funds necessary to close the detention centre. As a result, Guantanamo Bay is still open today. This example demonstrates that presidents need congress on their side in order for congress to not undermine their executive orders. While the president may have power of executive orders constitutionally speaking, he needs Congress to not undermine it. The House controls the purse and executive orders often require money. This evidence supports the assertion that the US presidency is “more imperiled than imperial” because although he has the legal power, the president needs the political power for his executive orders to not be undermined. In the UK, the PM cannot make laws alone but can vote on them.

Korematsu argued that the racial exclusion was unconstitutional and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States argued that Congress and the President had the power to order and legislate this exclusion based on Article 1 Section 8 and Article 2 Section 2.

In United States v Nixon, five burglars broke into the Democratic Party headquarters. After investigations, president Nixon received a subpoena ordering him to release tapes and transcripts connected to meetings between him and some individuals who had been indicted in the incident. Although the president released edited copies of the transcripts, his attorney filed a motion to quash the subpoena on grounds of executive privilege. The attorneys claim was that the judiciary lacked the powers to determine the president’s claim of executive privilege. It was held that no individual, not even the president is above the law and, therefore, the president cannot use executive privilege to withhold criminal evidence. The problem of separation of powers in this case arises from the president’s attorney that the concept of executive privilege stems from the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the executive insulates the president from judicial proceedings. Although the constitution provides for the separation of powers, these powers are not intended to operate independently and the assumption that the president is immune to judicial proceedings would affect the constitutional balance and impair the functionality of the judiciary. It is noteworthy that the offenses that led to the resignation of Nixon were relatively minor and the crisis was constitutional.

That same year, Congress would tap into its oversight powers once again as it launched a full-fledged investigation against Nixon and top White House officials who used their political positions for political advantage in the Watergate scandal. Citing “executive privilege,” Nixon asserted that he, as president, was immune from legislative oversight and that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order wiretaps without warrants.

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

To begin with, the system of checks and balances did not work well during the Watergate affair because the president was not sent to prison after trying to spy on the democratic party to find misleading information against them to win the reelection. This wasn’t the first time that his workers attempted to do this. On May, 11,1972 Nixon’s worker broke into the offices at Watergate, took photos of hidden documents and placed wiretaps on phones. They got away with it the first time but the next time

In the case of Kennedy V. Louisiana Patrick Kennedy was found guilty in raping and sodomizing his eight-year-old stepdaughter in a Louisiana courtroom. Mr. Kennedy refused to plead guilty and stated the crime was committed by two young boys from the neighborhood. He was convicted sentenced to death 2003. On March 2nd 1988 the victim sustained severe injuries; the injuries required emergency surgery because the rape was so brutal. Louisiana law authorized capital punishment for the rape of a child twelve years and younger. Mr. Patrick Kennedy challenged his sentence under the eighteen amendments as cruel and unusual punishment. The Louisiana Supreme Court declined the challenged that the death penalty was not too harsh for such a wicked crime. In a Supreme Court decision Coker v. Georgia 1977 the United States Supreme Court concluded that capital punishment for rape of an adult women was not applicable if the victim is a child and if it did not result or contemplated in result of a death. The court discussed a number of Supreme Court case related to child vulnerability and the death penalty. In the case of Roper V. Simmons the court ruled that the death penalty could not be applied to a person if the crime was committed when they were under the age of eighteen. In another case, Atkins V. Virginia the death penalty could not be placed on a mentally ill person. The petitioner Kennedy argued that in all these cases they do not establish conformity.

The Chief Justice that presided over this case was C.J. Rehnquist, the other presiding Justices were J. O'Connor, J. Stevens, J. Souter, J. Breyer, JJ. Thomas, J. Kennedy, J. Scalia, and JJ. Ginsburg. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion over the case with Justices O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas filed concurring opinions. Whereas, Justices Breyer, Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion. Before I go into the opinion that Rehnquist delivered I would like to go in to some of the opinions that the other Justices' had stated as to their dissenting opinions.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

3). It was established that prior restraints are suspect under the First Amendment. Gurfein changed his decision after a few hours of hearings. He removed the restraining order the next day, saying “The First Amendment prohibits censorship by the government in all but the most exceptional cases.” (Liptak, par.15). In return, the government appealed his decision. During this whole process, The Washington Post started publishing the article and was also sued. Appeals courts in Washington allowed publication and New York prohibited it. The lawyers for The New York Times contacted Solicitor General Erwin Griswold to appeal to the Supreme Court. They provided a twenty-page

At the turn of the twentieth century, a bourgeoisie fixation on capitalistic structures and mass consumerism often juxtaposed the call for meritocracy, thus placing some individuals at an advantage over others. Tension was soon evident between the beneficiaries and the exploited of the gilded economy. This push and pull relationship can best be observed in the 1908 Supreme Court case, Muller v. Oregon, in which the owner of a Portland Laundromat violated state legislation that disallowed women from working more than ten hours a day. Siding with the needs of the laborer, the Supreme Court overruled Muller’s claim for freedom of contract and right to property (Gagnon Lecture, 01/26/15). While many argue that this decision devalues the relationship between employee and employer as well as undermines an individual’s inalienable rights to life, liberty and property at the hands of another, there is an underlying, and perhaps even larger issue at hand. The ruling of the case indicates that judiciary actions taken only reinforce gender formations- once again attacking the plea for equal opportunity. Because of this alarming backlash in societal equity, the Supreme Court’s decision should be deemed unjust. Although the case recognizes the significance of employee rights in the workforce, the decision is restricted to the sole protection of female workers and only