Severus Jones Case Study

The majority opinion of the Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines can be reasoned

Brutus Jones is an African-American man who kills another man during a dice game and was sent to prison. While in prison, he kills a guard to escape, and flees to a primitive island. On his new island home, he takes advantage of the native people and become their emperor. Jones’ strength is that he is able to manipulate the islanders into giving him authority. Jones’ weaknesses, however, greatly outweigh his strengths. Jones is overly prideful, which causes him to have a false sense of superiority over his islanders. Another weakness is his sense of guilt; Jones is also so overcome with guilt for his past murders that he is both literally and figuratively haunted by the two men he has killed.

v. City of St. Paul, the Court overturned a statute prohibiting speech or symbolic expression that "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender" on the grounds that, even if the specific statute was limited to fighting words, it was unconstitutionally content-based and viewpoint-based because of the limitation to race-/religion-/sex-based fighting words. The Court, however, made it repeatedly clear that the City could have pursued "any number" of other avenues, and reaffirmed the notion that "fighting words" could be properly regulated by municipal or state governments.

Marbury v. Madison has been hailed as one of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court has ruled upon. In this paper, I will explain the origins and background in the case, discuss the major Constitutional issues it raised, and outline the major points of the courts decision. I will also explain the significance of this key decision.

As of today, the supreme court has interpreted the first amendment to say “The First Amendment provides no protection for obscenity, child pornography, or speech that constitutes what has become widely known as “fighting words.” The First Amendment provides less than full protection to commercial speech, defamation (libel and slander), speech that may be harmful to children, speech broadcast on radio and television (as opposed to speech transmitted via cable or the Internet), and public employees’ speech.”(Ruane, Kathleen Ann) with this loose definition in mind many people have begun to think whether freedom of speech should be further limited to several cases seen in recent years such as what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia.

The case of Mapp vs. Ohio is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last century. Until this decision, the rights against illegal search and

The Founding Fathers of the United States of America laid the foundation for the basic and fundamental rights that its citizens are entitled to. These principles have been the underlying framework for the United States of America’s government and legal system, where the citizens hold the power. Throughout the country’s history, many laws on both state and federal levels have been challenged and have thus evolved America’s culture. Among these laws that have challenged the Constitution is a famous court case from 1965: Griswold v. Connecticut. A highly controversial case, Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for future controversies and legal development of its kind.

In connection to the shooting death of Franklin Jones, 32, police arrested Tito Ivey, 35, on murder charges. Ivey sits in a DeKalb County jail awaiting trial. At 3 am on Sunday, witnesses saw Jones acting erratic by the pool of the Hyatt Hotel on Mall Ring Road. Jones was shot to death at the top floor of the five-story building.

Title: Ginsburg v. City of Ithaca and Cornell University et al., 839 F. Supp. 2d. 537 (N.D.N.Y. 2012).

The following case analysis seeks to examine the Supreme Court’s decisions in Racine v. Woods, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 173, in regard to the legal questions, basis of reasoning, as well as the cultural implications.

In the Court’s highly fragmented decision, the justices attempted to define a proper balance of and boundary between federal and state authority: by arguing that state action constituted only those acts sanctioned by the state’s laws and by dismissing Section 20 for vagueness, the major block of dissenters suggested that the risk posed to state autonomy by federal intervention was too great; by recognizing the defendants’ actions as those perpetrated “under color of law” and by creating a “willful” test for acts under Section 20, the majority Opinion affirmed the federal government’s interest in protecting the rights of citizens from abuse by state authority, but provided it with a tenuous means for defending those liberties.

The California judicial system and the United States federal system are different but comparable. Consequently, both the California and the United States federal judicial system handle different types of cases. Essentially, California handles cases that deal with 1) state courts 2) civil cases and 3) criminal cases. On the other hand, the United States federal system handle cases that deal with 1) the Constitution, 2) laws that are passed through congress and 3) cases in which the United States is a party. In spite of the fact that the California system and the United States federal system are different yet comparable, this paper will address both court systems concluding with the United States federal system being superior to the California system.

Name: Albert L. Trop v. John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State, et al. Citation: 356 U.S 86 78 S. Ct. 590; 2 L. Ed. 2d 630; 1958 U.S. LEXIS 1284. Year: 1958.

The concept of "heights of jurisdictional scrutiny", including strict examination, was presented in Footnote four of the America Federal Court conclusion in America v. Carolene Products Co. single sequence of judgments challenging the constitutionality of New Agreement of legislation. The leading and greatest distinguished case in which the federal Court executed the stern scrutiny standard and produce the administration's actions binding was Korematsu v. United States. In which the federal Court supported the prohibiting of Japanese Americans from selected zones for the period of World War II.

California, Cohen was in the Los Angeles County Courthouse wearing a jacket bearing the phrase “Fuck the draft.” Upon entering into a courtroom with the jacket over his arms, a policeman suggested to the judge that the court hold Cohen in contempt of court, however, the suggestion was declined. The officer then arrested Cohen and he was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting “[M]aliciously and willfully disturbing the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct.” In the Supreme Court, the government alleged that the words on Cohen’s jacket were disruptive conduct akin to fighting words - words that the Court had described several years prior in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire as those that inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace. In Cohen, the Court defined fighting words as “[T]hose personally abusive epithets which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke violent reaction.”