The Case Of Hernandez V. Texas

While, reading the case, Elonis v. United States, I was astonished to see that someone would post something so explicit, offensive, and inhumane. Basically, the case of Elonis v. United States is about a man named Anthony Elonis who is an upcoming rapper and used his stage name, Tone Dougie. His Facebook page consisted of him posting disturbing rap lyrics. Even though Elonis was going through a divorce with his former wife, which did not stop him from writing and posting crude lyrics. Eventually, it got to the point where his wife felt that she was being targeted by his lyrics. According to an article on, New York Times, Elonis wrote that he wanted to see a Halloween costume that included his wife’s “head” on a stick. Obviously, she felt threatened and reported the assaults to the police. Anthony Elonis was convicted for posting threats that targeted his wife, his coworkers, police officers, a kindergarten class, and even an FBI agent. Although Elonis argued that his posting are not considered to be a “true threat” and that he is protected under the First Amendment. I believe he wanted to cause fear towards his wife, Tara and therefore, is his lyrics are a true threat. Basically, a true threat is defined as something a person would consider to be “purposely” harmful and cause pain. Elonis mentioned that his post were not offended nor were the threatening anybody. He stated that he did not have the intent of trying to harm anyone, he was just trying

Almost two months later after the arrest, the arguments were presented to the three-judge panel of the Texas District Court of Appeals. The discussion was on both issues raised: the equal protection and right to privacy. John Anderson and Chief Justice Paul Murphy ruled in the favour of appellants. They found that they law was in violation of the Equal Rights Amendment to the Texas Constitutions which prohibited any discrimination based on

It’s almost the end of 2016 and we still experience discriminative trouble. We are all different but should accept others differences. After reading “What, of This Goldfish, Would You Wish?”, by Etgar Keret, “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion”, by William J. Brennan, and “American Flag Stands for Tolerance”, by Ronald J. Alle, I have found fluent differences in the people explored and the way the people accepted others. In “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion” the people of Texas are having a hard time accepting the fact that Johnson had burned a flag. In “American Flag Stands for Tolerance” the writer states that burning the flag wasn’t illegal and should accept those who express what they believe, even if you don’t agree with them. In the story “What, of This

In 1931, the California legislature barred any company doing business with the state from hiring “alien” workers on public jobs, forcing the removal of Mexicans from construction work, highway repair, school maintenance, and jobs in government buildings (Sanchez 211). At the same time, officials in Los Angeles

The tone in Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion is formal because of its context. Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion is a Supreme Court of the United States case and the article is about their opinion and how they defended their opinion. Brennan, the author, uses many different words to describe the tone. He uses “we and our,” to say that this was not only his opinion but the other justices’ as well. He also uses “joust, therefore, and as a means,” to create the formal tone. Brennan also uses “gesture and cherish.”

Gonzalez opens this chapter with, conceivably, the harshest narrative he could find to support his claims: He writes of a Latina mother forced by a judge to speak English to her daughter at home if she wanted to retain custody (Gonzalez 206). He continues on to describe the three categories of people affected by the

First, lets discuss Pubols main argument about California Mexicans having agency and playing a large role in society. Pubols did a great job of using the de la Guerra family as her main case. By examining the sources used by Pubols this family was well known and their records were well kept. In fact, when examining the notes there are two completed volumes translated of the de la Guerra’s family records. I found the research done by Pubols to be extensive and well presented. One of my critiques of Pubols main argument would be this was one family in one city in California. I would have liked to see Pubols expand her argument pass the one family to include several.

In 1981, the parents of several school aged children of Mexican Origin filed a suit against Superintendent James Plyler, of Tyler, Texas, regarding immigration status. The Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202 (1982)) case decision could not have happened prior to 1982, if numerous cases had not paved the way. Some of the significance cases were Vlandis v. Kline (412 U.S. 441 (1973)), which denied an individual an opportunity to present evidence they were a resident entitled to in-state-rates. In Weinberger v. Salfe (422 U.S. 771 (1975)), denied social security benefits to be paid to a mother and child after her husband died. In Toll v. Moreno (441 U.S. 458 (1978)), a student was financially depend upon a person who held a G-4 visa, granted to officers or employees of international organizations. In Elkins v. Moreno (435 U.S. 647 (1978), the student was refused in-state-status, whose parents were lived in Maryland.

During the 19th Century, the United States sought to expand westwards and increase their land. Since Mexico stood in the way they did all they could to provoke it and start a war. “The Mexicans fired the first shot. But they had done what the American government wanted” (Zinn 151). What they wanted was California, soon they wanted Texas and then Arizona and New Mexico came along. For a long period of time, probably still today; Mexican-Americans are seen as “an ahistoric people” (Romano 44). An assumption that is completely wrong. Mexican American have been fighting for their rights and equality since they became part of America. In fact, they had two movements conduct by different generations. The Mexican-American Generation between 1930 and 1960; and the Chicano generation between 1945-1960. Although both generations were had the same ancestry, they had different worldview because of their history and the events that were going on in their time. Both Mexican-American generation and Chicano generation similarities and differences help understand the overall Chicano history in the 20th Century.

It has been argued since the start of immigration whether or not aliens (undocumented or documented) should have the same equal rights as Americans when it comes to employment, education, and benefits in the United States. Despite what individuals believe or disbelieve, under certain acts, codes, laws, and the U.S. Constitution, all aliens have rights, regardless of their immigration status. In this paper I will discuss an overview of the court case, Patel v, Quality Inn South, which deals with an undocumented alien who was able to recover funds from his former employer. I will explain the acts that impacted the case, whether I agree or disagree with the outcome of the case, and my personal opinions of the case itself.

Discrimination has been the brawn of injustices done to people of color. Most don't know of the Chicano struggle in the United Stated for the past four to six generations. Chicanos in America were forced to face chaos, poverty, and pain. Chicano, by Richard Vasquez is a perfect example of how Mexican Americans and Chicanos were treated in America during the 90's. Although Chicanos faced a burdensome life in America, lots of customs and culture immigrated to America with them, which has fabricated the Chicano Culture. The book Chicano profoundly demonstrates how hard it was for a Mexican family to immigrate to America. Once Chicanos started a life in America, it was very hard to get out of it. Mexicans were not socially accepted because

Mexican Americans in the education system have been treated unfair. From the Mendez v. Westminster to the low number of students graduating from high school and moving to a higher institution shows that the system has done nothing to help these students. By the help of the community wealth theory many of the few numbers of scholars who have been able to reach these higher institutions have been able to put families, schools, peers, and other influences for their benefit and for helping them enter these systems which are not welcoming to them. Various aspects of these systems need to be change from the diversity of teachers and desegregation in and within schools around the US which would influence the communication and thoughts that Mexican

On Sundays after Mass- every single Sunday, Latinos gathered on parks to play soccer and have carne asada something that is very traditional in Mexican families my family could be an example of that. These parks were built with the money taken from the Japanese which speaking of now a day’s use these complexes too and this is where the two cultures met.

The Mexican American movement for equality can be divided into two parts in the struggle for equality. First, the 1930’s-60’s can be characterized by: attempts to integrate into Anglo-American society, and earning rights via legal channels. The second part begins in 1960 (with an indefinite end point), this is the Chicano Movement, and it can be characterized by: defiance of US culture, and earning rights via direct political action. Each movement provided its own set of costs and benefits – the former being ‘low-risk, low-reward’, while the later can be seen as ‘high-risk, high reward’. This paper will explore each movement in order to better distinguish them from one another, and to analyze which, in the long run, proved to be more effective.

Aguilar v. Texas established the “two-pronged test” for determining whether a confidential informant’s tip is enough to establish probable cause for a magistrate to issue a search warrant (Aguilar v. Texas, 1964). The test consisted of the reliability of the informant and the basis of knowledge that he or she has of the criminal activity. While these two elements are important, they should not be the sole basis that a magistrate uses to prove probable cause exists. Instead, these elements should be used to as guides when considering the totality of the circumstances of the situation. Illinois v. Gates vacated the two-pronged tests and installed the traditional “totality of the circumstances” approach.