Mcculloch V. Maryland

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

The Establishment Clause guarantees the separation of church and government. Christian Theism is the default state doctrinal religion. As opposed to being something to fear , it was believed to be vital to the success of our government. Consequently, framers feared a state denominational religion not a state doctrinal religion. The Supreme Court established various tests to assess the constitutionality of laws that happened before it. The Lemon Test, has three parts addressing purpose, effect, and involvement. To pass the test, government action must be used only for a secular purpose; cannot promote neither prohibit a specific religion. As well as to not substantially involve government in religious matters. Failure on any one of the three

America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

McCulloch vs. Maryland John Marshall was a prominent figure in the history of the United States as the man who helped shape the Supreme Court to the power it is today. His decisions strengthened the power of the federal

McCulloch V. Maryland is the crucial debate of 1819 in regards to expand the Federal power. This debate was over Congress establishing a bank effecting the powers of the state and federal government. However, James W. McCulloch refused to pay the taxes for the Second National Bank chartered by the Congress. Therefore Maryland filed a lawsuit against McCulloch causing distress. The Supreme Court states that chartering a bank is an implied power of the Constitution. But what is implied powers? Implied powers are powers that Congress exercise in the Constitution but somehow exists due to the expressed powers stated in Article 1. And who has the power of chartering a bank? Both the national and state government has the power of being able to charter banks, borrow money and build roads etc. This is an example of concurrent powers. This means that both the state and national government can have similar types of power but can be fought against. Both governments must work together to resolve the issue.

The First Amendment vs. the phrase “separation of church and state” The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”. This Amendment was created to protect the first United States citizens, who were escaping religious persecution and sought the right to freedom of religion and expression without government interference. The United States government is the first in world history to deliberately allow religious freedom. Though the First Amendment states that there should be some kind of separation between church and state, even the highest branches of the United States government use religion to hold citizens and or themselves accountable; thus, many people

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution founded the concrete belief that government and faith-based institutions must and will remain separate from one another. This section of the first amendment disavows the U.S. government to establish or sanction any system of organized faiths or religions upon the people or to outlaw or disgrace any systems of organized faiths as well. But the line discerning the legitimacy of a faith and the true extent of the government's power over faith-based organizations has only remained to become muddled over the past 240 years of its establishment. Over the years, the ideology and true intent of the founding fathers had remained in question, where some believe the amendment addresses to the general

Missouri v. McNeely(2013) was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on an appeal from the Supreme Court in Missouri, regarding exceptions to the Fourth Amendment under exigent circumstances. On October 3, 2010, Tyler Gabriel McNeely was stopped by a police officer in Missouri for speeding and crossing over a centerline. The police officer asked McNeely if he could take a breath test to measure his blood alcohol level because he had noticed signs of intoxication, including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol. After refusing to take the breath test, McNeely was arrested and taken to a nearby hospital so they could do a blood test. McNeely refused, but the officer still told a lab technician to take his blood. His blood alcohol level tested far above the legal limit, and he was later charged with driving under the influence. He later argued that the taking of his blood without consent violated his Fourth Amendment rights in which the court agreed. I found this case interesting because we see a lot of drunk driving today and it 's an uneasy feeling knowing that drunk drivers could possibly get away with the crime they are committing since it may take a while for an officer to get a warrant. I would like to see the stages that the Supreme Court went through to get to the decision they came up with.

12. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Constitutional Question: Does the Constitution protect thSe right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? This questions Due Process of Law.

McCulloch V. Maryland. Was an argument between McCulloch vs Maryland. The argument was a battle between whether the constitution allows a national government to run a bank. As well as does the constitution allow state governments to tax a national bank operating within its borders? However the Supreme Court ruled in favor of banks being able to be built and run by the national government. However they ruled that state governments are unable to tax a national bank that is within their borders.

The constitutionality of providing tax exemptions to religious organizations was upheld in the U.S. Supreme Court case Walz v. Tax Comm 'n of the City of New York. Frederick Walz, a New York real estate owner, brought the suit against the New York City Tax Commission on the grounds that the property tax exemption for churches forced taxpayers to indirectly contribute to those churches, thus violating the Establishment clause. The Supreme Court upheld the property tax exemption for churches, ruling that it did not violate the Establishment clause. In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger emphasized that the First Amendment “will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion” ("Walz v. Tax,” n.d.). This interpretation of the First Amendment was echoed one year later with the creation of the Lemon test ("Lemon v. Kurtzman," n.d.). He used this framework to judge whether the tax exemption violated the First Amendment. Burger maintained that “The legislative purpose of the property tax exemption is neither the advancement nor the inhibition of religion… [and we] cannot read New York 's statute as attempting to establish religion; it is simply sparing the exercise of religion from the burden of property taxation levied on private profit institutions” ("Walz v. Tax,” n.d.). Burger further adds that exempting churches from taxes creates far less government entanglement with religion than taxing churches does,

First, there is the “social benefit” theory of tax exemption. This recognizes the fact that churches provide great benefits to society by their good works,” there are plenty of organizations that provide good works to the public, but still have to pay taxes. Privately owned hospitals provide a great service to their community, but they still have to pay taxes like everyone else. Even though a religious organization or church gives back to the community, they should not be considered tax

Separation of church and state is a defined as, the understanding of the intent, and function of the Establishment Clause, and Free Exercise Clause. The Combination of church and state has been a topic that, many generations have struggled with for centuries. The first amendment of the constitution states that “Congress shall make no law about our religious beliefs, or prohibiting our free exercise of religion” If we put our faith in the constitution to define the founding father’s standpoint of separation of church and state, then we have definitely misinterpreted their stance on religion. Many people believe the reference to separation of church and state is in the original constitution, but the truth is, the references, often conceptualized and misinterpreted as intertwining with our religious freedom, but that is not the truth.

The tax exemption system for churches is out dated and has many negative effects on the economy. Ryan T. Cragun, a sociologist at the University of Tampa, said in a Washington Post Article that not taxing churches is costing the United Sates seventy one billion dollars a year (Washington Post). However, what the article goes on to say is more astounding still. That number is almost certainly a lowball, because they didn’t take into