Supreme Court Majority Case

SHOULD U.S. CITIZENS WHO ARE DECLARED TO BE “ENEMY COMBATANTS” BE ABLE TO CONTEST THEIR DETENTION BEFORE A JUDGE?

Until the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, The Supreme Court does not have the power to establish laws. However, this changed 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution. That amendment articulated that states could not deny people freedom without the due process of law. 14th Amendment, Section 1 reads:

According to Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut the United States Constitution protects women’s rights to use contraceptives. Our Constitutional heritage and principles contradict the verdict of that case. The general right to privacy that (has been said) is outlined in the Constitution, was used in the Supreme Court case to argue that decisions about a woman’s body is protected. Yet, nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the right to marital privacy. There are many flaws surrounding the verdict of Griswold v. Connecticut; not only constitutionally, but theologically and scientifically.

The central contention of the case is of the interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The court argued that it was “within the power of the State under the Fourteenth Amendment” to provide sexual sterilization to those who were found to be “with an heredity form of insanity or imbecility.” Upon close examination of the 14th Amendment, one can see the ambiguity it contains. The Amendment can be read as really saying that the “state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; …deprive any person of life, liberty, or property” as long as “due process of law” is followed, and granted “the equal protection of the laws.” And this seems to be the way the Supreme Court read it. Since due process was

In a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas,the Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married

The Supreme Court held that Connecticut's law of 1879 on the ban of contraceptives violated the rights of marital privacy (McBride, 2007). The law of 1879, violated the Fifth and Fourteenth amendment of married couples by invading their privacy. The Fifth amendment states, “no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due of process law”” and the Fourteenth amendment also uses the same context (Straus, 2017). The state of Connecticut had to prove why it was necessary to imply the 1879 law, which prohibited married couples from using any type of birth control. However, the law invaded the basic rights of the married couples to privacy, by not allowing them to make their own decisions of using contraceptives or

The government argued that police have an interest in investigating, preventing, and punishing crime. Therefore, their interest outweighs the persons diminished expectation of privacy at the time of an lawful arrest. Another argument for the United States would be the safety of police officers and the safeguarding of destructible evidence, thus justifying the search of the areas within immediate control of arrestees.

This year Western Conservative Summit drew five Republican candidates and one likely candidate. Sen. Rick Santorum led the stage on Friday and it continued on Saturday with Gov. Mike Huckabee, Carly Florina, Gov. Rick Perry, Ben Carson and Gov. Scott Walker.

Supreme Court reflected and reinforced nationalism during the post-Ghent years, despite the ominous setbacks concerning slavery.

In 2009, the Journal of American Medical Association wrote that at least 13,000 infants will be born dependent on some sort of substance, and DrugRehab.org says that eight million children have a parent that is addicted to substances as well. Now, most laws do protect the baby from a drug addicted mother, mainly in the event of a stillborn. While having a baby with brain damages and problems caused by the mother’s substance abuse, the mother will also suffer complications during childbirth (Sarah Blustain). Barry Lester found that 320,000 pregnant women suffer from alcoholism or the use of drugs. He views that their punishment is based on what society deems is criminally wrong and believes it is a disease that should be treated at a mental health facility not prison or jail(Drug-addicted mothers need treatment, not punishment). Drug addicted mothers, pregnant or not, pose a threat to a child’s safety, and therefore, should be punished.

As a student or professional in the criminal justice field, one will undoubtedly cross paths with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court finally recognized a right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution. The authors state, “The case involved a Connecticut law that made it illegal for married couples to use contraceptives, or birth control. (Contraceptives prevent a woman from getting pregnant when she has sexual intercourse.) Nothing in the Constitution specifically says married couples have a right to use birth control. The court, however, said the law interfered with “the right of privacy in marriage.” In other words, privacy for married couples in America allows them to decide whether to use contraceptive devices” (Brannen, Hanes, and Shaw 68).

In my opinion for question #2, I think it downright comes down to the inability for California to be able to substantiate and clearly define their law. In this case, Supreme Court struck down on First Amendment grounds a California law that barred the sale of violent video games to children. It was not a unanimous decision by the judges either, it was a 7-to-2 decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen G. Breyer filed separate dissents. Justice Thomas said the Constitution did not protect minors’ free speech rights, while Justice Breyer said the statute survived First Amendment scrutiny.

To keep the public rights protected, federal courts of different levels were created. In 1789, First Supreme Court was established. Along with that, various federal and district courts were organized and their area of jurisdiction was finalized. Judiciary Act of that year also created the need for the US Attorney, Attorney general and marshal offices. In 1790 only, the criminal act was passed in congress, which approved different 17 crimes against federal government, including treason (Net Industries, 2015).

The vast majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decisions are written by an individual justice on the panel deciding that particular case, even on cases where the judgement was not unanimous (McCormick, 2015: 159). However, on rare occasions starting in the 1970’s the SCC started to use a different method of authorship where the decision is written instead “By the Court”. This method is generally reserved for important constitutional questions by a unanimous court and has only been used a handful of times since the tradition started, though its use has been on the rise during the McLachlin court. It is my intention, through my proposed Master’s Research Paper (MRP) to look into this issues to determine, how, if at all, this