The 8th amendment states, “ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Which brings me to the case of Thompson vs. Oklahoma. The debate is on whether or not capital punishment should be given to minors. On one hand, some may argue that Thompson should have been charged with capital punishment because “his acts were heinous and cruel” (Pearson Prentice Hall: n.d.). On the other hand, others such as Oklahoma argue that it is a violation of the 8th amendment under “cruel and unusual punishment.” This creates the argument of Thompson vs. Oklahoma.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public
Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,
“According to estimates from the 2013 ACS, the U.S. immigrant population stood at more than 41.3 million, or 13 percent, of the total U.S. population of 316.1 million. Between 2012 and 2013, the foreign-born population increased by about 523,000, or 1.3 percent. U.S. immigrants and their U.S.-born children now number approximately 80 million persons, or one-quarter of the overall U.S. population.”People for in other countries that come to America are known as immigrants. They can be categorized as illegal or legal immigrants. Recently there has been a case (Texas v. United States) which corresponds with immigration in the United States of America. Now, it is seen as inhumane to break up families in the United sates, It’s illegal for states to sue the U.S., and the general public does not need time to react to the new program in motion.
As children, we have all stepped that “boundary” between right and wrong. From stealing money to shoplifting to fighting, we have all made our parents frustrated, made poor decisions, and perhaps, even made a egregious mistake. However, when does stepping that “boundary” become irremediable? Can the government punish minors under the same criteria they do with adults? And most importantly, what does the United States Constitution say? These are all questions that both the Missouri Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court had to consider when they dived into the case of Roper v. Simmons. To provide a little historical
Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.
The assumption approach is the result of two Supreme Court cases, Horowitz and Ewing. In Horowitz, a medical student brought a due process claim against the University of Missouri-Kansas City for dismissing her for academic reasons. The Supreme Court first discussed whether Horowitz had a protected interest. The Supreme Court noted that the plaintiff never alleged a property interest, but that if she were to do so, she would have to rely upon Missouri state law to have a valid claim. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court assumed the plaintiff had a property interest in her case without deciding the question. Instead of addressing the property interest question, the Supreme Court found that the university provided the plaintiff sufficient process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore the Supreme Court never determined whether the student had a property interest in her education.
Facts: This case consists of Hereford a criminal informant who gets information of narcotic laws to Officer Marsh; a federal narcotic agent with 29 years on the job. Hereford had been feeding Marsh information for close to 6 months and that information was accurate and reliable. In the early days of September 1956, Hereford told Officer Marsh that the defendant James Draper was distributing illegal narcotics throughout Denver. Several days later, Hereford told Marsh that in the days before Draper went to Chicago and set to return with several ounces of heroin. Along with the information given Hereford gave a physical description of Draper, which included his age, weight, race, and clothes that he had
During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.
In 2000, the Arlington Police Department received information stating that Earnest Leon Voyles had exchanged emails that contained sexual content with a fifteen year old girl from London, England. According to this informant the fifteen year old girl, “Amy Chang”, had been solicited for sex by Voyles and had arranged to meet with her in London to engage in a sexual relationship. Sergeant James Crouch of the Arlington Police Department was unsuccessful in contacting “Amy Chang” to verify the arrangement but was not successful, however, he was successful in verifying that Voyles was working as a teacher at a junior high located in Arlington, Texas.
In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.
Hernandez V. Texas is based in the 6th amendment, “guarantees a defendant a right to counsel in all criminal prosecutions”. This case is a very well-known because there was too much of discrimination towards Hispanics. Pedro Hernandez is a resident at Edna, Texas, a Mexican guy who was accused of convicting the murder of Joe Espinosa who was also a resident of the same area. Hernandez was found guilty by an all-white jury going all the way to Supreme Court. Their lawyers argue that it wasn’t fair for them not having a Mexican American as a jury and there was only Americans, because in that way they would take advantage of a Mexican American to do whatever they wanted to do with him. In the 1950’s was when this case occurred and also there was a harsh discrimination to Mexican Americans from the white people at the United States. Mexicans and African Americans were just a “waste of time” for the white people, that’s how the white people thought about them. History, discrimination and how did this issue impact police, court, and corrections are essential things that will be cover.
In August 2009, the Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans a non-profit organization that works to preserve the memory and reputation of soldiers who fought for the confederacy in the Civil War, applied to have a new specialty license plate issued by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicle. The proposed license plate had two confederate flags on it. Texas SCV sued in federal district court claiming their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated.
For a timeline and a narrative of the cases that set legal precedence in the areas of retaliation and sexual harassment would consist of Williams v. Saxbe in 1976. The court recognized sexual harassment as a form of sexual discrimination when sexual advances by male superior towards female employee. In the Barnes v. Costle case in 1977, it set the precedent that if a female employee was retaliated against for rejecting sexual advances of her boss, it is a violation of Title VIIs prohibition against sex discrimination. The court of US Court of Appeals, Second District ruled in this matter. In the Bundy v. Jackson case in 1981, it set the precedent that if an employee is sexually insulted, there can be Title VII liability. This was ruled by