Matthew V. Charlotte Case

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

McCutcheon v. FEC was a landmark case in American campaign finance law which challenged that it is unconstitutional to limit an individual’s donations to as many parties as they want because in doing so their freedom of speech is being violated. The plaintiff is Shaun McCutcheon who is part of the Jefferson County Republic Party Steering Committee as well as the Reagan Foundation. The Republican National Committee was also a plaintiff. This case is a constitutional challenge to aggregate limits on contributions to federal candidates and to political committees such as PACs and parties. These aggregate limits restrict the total amount of money an individual may contribute to all candidates or all political committees during an election cycle. The plaintiff did not challenge the individual contribution limits on particular political entities but challenged the additional cap BCRA places on the total an individual can place on all political contributions. BCRA stands for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which addressed two main issues: “prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits . . . and the proliferation of issue advocacy ads” (which is defined as “electioneering communication” and was over turned in Citizens United v. FEC) (Campaign Finance Law Quick Reference for Reporters). So what does this mean exactly?

The United States Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice who are petitioned more than 5,000 times a year to hear various cases (Before the Court in Miller V. Alabama, 2012). At its discretion, the Supreme Court selects which cases they choose to review. Some of the selected cases began in the state court system and others began in the federal court system. On June 25, 2012 the justices of the Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of life without parole for juvenile offenders. The case was Miller v. Alabama and actually included another case, Jackson v Hobbs, as well (2012). Both were criminal cases involving 14 year old boys who were

“Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” is what comes to mind when we are in court or thinking about the constitution. That was not the case in the Dred Scott V. Sanford decision because Dred Scott was African American and a slave suing for his freedom. Dred Scott was an early, persistent steadfast, fighter for African American civil rights. “The Dred Scott decision declares two propositions—first, that a Negro cannot sue the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories.” Dred Scott forced the Supreme Court to fully articulate its stance on slavery; the results of which had long standing effects. His case in the Supreme Court brought heated opinions from both the North and the South regarding states’ rights and slave rights. Both sides had a huge debate both regarding the issue using very valid arguments towards the Dred Scott case.

The percentage of the white male population with a high school diploma in 1964 was 27.6%, while only 14.6% of black males had a high school diploma. This was because black people had a harder time getting into schools. Judgment because of a persons race should not be allowed, so people decided to take it to court. Not to mention, Supreme Court cases have really driven people's need and want for civil rights: Loving v. Virginia (1967), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971), Bakke v. University of California (1978).

In the case of the State of North Carolina v. Lester Gerard Packingham, the question of whether a state can restrict sex offender’s from being on social media sites without restricting their constitutional rights is played out. Lester Packingham is a registered sex offender who was caught having a Facebook website profile even though it is against North Carolina state law. This paper will explore the constitutionality of N.C. Gen Stat. § 14–202.5 (2011) and will analyze the legal opinions of this case from both the Court of Appeals of North Carolina and Supreme Court of North Carolina and make an educated decision on whether the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s decision should be upheld or reversed.

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.” This is what the Supreme Court determined in the landmark decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. Presently churches or religious establishments are tax exempt. Many people vividly oppose the government’s stance on the issue, but though the government does many things wrong, as many will tell you, this is not one one of them.

The reason that I think the case of Dred Scott v Sanford is so important is that, When DredScott's was taken from St louis to fort Armstrong to fort Snelling as an army doctor personalservant and by him living in free state and him returning to Missouri and master dying meansDred Scott became a free man, however Sanford's brother in law who lived in New York at thetime said otherwise. Dred Scott's claim was that he was free because no one owned him andbecause he was in a free state. However, the law of the land said he could be free but other saidhe was a slave which means property and slaves don’t have rights as the white man. TheSupreme Court decision that stated that slaves were not citizens, that slaves living in a free stateor territory

In the Carter of Rights and Freedoms section 7 states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right to not be deprived thereof except in accordance to the principles of fundamental justice (Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,1982). In the cases of Rodrigues vs. Carter, Sue Rodrigues was a woman who was suffering from Lou Gehrig’s disease. She was denied of her request for assisted suicide despite the fact that she was terminally ill and fully competent to make the decision for herself. The main premise for rejecting Rodriguez’s claim is derived from section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms which is later counter argued by claims that the prohibition interfered with Rodriguez’s right to personal

A young woman converses with her mother, with a huge smile on her face. She excitedly shares details about this amazing man that she met and how happy he makes her. Her mother extends the same level of happiness to her daughter, thrilled to hear that she has finally found her true love. Moments later, a tall man walks through the door and the mother’s once joyful visage instantly changes to a more shocked and unpleasant expression. “Mom,” the young girl says, “this is John!” Clearly, the young woman talked fondly of this man, but why did the mother react strangely after getting one good look at him? Maybe it was important to point out that this tall man was also a tall black man, a man

Under the First Amendment, the founders intended to create a press that could inform the general public of government affairs. The Founders did this in response to the oppressive action of the British government, including the trial of John Paul Zenger. In Branzburg v. Hayes, a plurality and a concurrence within this Court recognized that the First Amendment included a privilege that protected journalists from being compelled to divulge a source to a grand jury. Because there was no clear majority, the narrowest holding of the plurality and the concurrence is considered the controlling opinion. Further, there is an overwhelming consensus among circuit courts that the privilege exists. This privilege protects journalists when the interest in

Question: In Baptist v. Sampson, the Texas Supreme Court did not agree with the appellate court that holding hospitals liable for the negligence of ER doctors should be a non-delegable duty. Explain why you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court. Under what theory can a hospital be held liable for the conduct of emergency room physicians who are independent contractors? You should be able to answer question three in no more than 2-3 pages. You need to discuss the theory of liability, what the appellate court held, what the Supreme court held...and why you believe one or the other is correct.

As an important landmark case in Congress and the Supreme Court History, McCulloch V. Maryland. Which set the guidelines for how much power congress really had as well as how much power the constitution had over state laws. It put attention the issue of a state taxing a federal bank in 1816. Maryland imposed a law that called for the taxation of banks in the state that was not chartered by state legislature during the depression of 1818. The second bank of the United States had refused to pay the tax claiming that it was unconstitutional. Leading the case to be taken to state court then the Supreme Court.

Legislation passed under former Chief Justice John Marshall would continue the Federalists agenda to define a strong central government while diminishing state level powers. Arguably the most important Supreme Court case in history, Marbury v. Madison’s (1803) presided over the commissions of several judges appointed in the final hours of the Adams administration. Chief Justice Marshall would deny the petition and writ, claiming the court did not have the power to issue them however; he awarded the plaintiffs their commissions. As result Marshall’s decision established judicial review allowing federal courts to nullify acts of Congress that violate the Constitution. Despite the immediate limitations Marshall place on the court his actions would