Texas Supreme Court Case Analysis

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

What started the argument of this case was ‘what standard should be used to evaluate the sufficient amount of probable cause and if the word of an informant be reliable. Thanks to this case we now have a two prong rule that needs to be met before a magistrate can sign a search warrant.

Because if a constitution does not reflect the state it’s supposed to, everything else does not matter. Texas is a diverse state in constant change, and the constitution should be able to adapt to current

Texas case served as the tip of the iceberg into advancing the gay rights movement in Texas and nationwide. Without the case as well as the specific decision made by the Supreme Court, Texas would still be majorly intolerant, discriminant, and unrepresented by the LGBT community and supporters. Lawrence and Garner were two men who fought for their love, their privacy, and their rights, and they came out successfully in the end in turn affecting all of society and many events that have taken place since 2003. Considering if sodomy laws were still implemented in Texas, an injustice and unconstitutional hindrance would be in place fostering the traditional culture and conservative views that are voiced as the majority in Texas. In the past few years, Texas Democrats have voiced their support of same-sex marriage, the next step in the gay rights movement. In 2012 their support and advocacy in favor of same-sex marriage began and it would not have been possible without the existence of the Lawrence v. Texas case and its six to three ruling declaring the sodomy laws in Texas unconstitutional. The LGBT community wants what all Americans expect: life, liberty, and property. The pursuit of happiness is the added bonus as to what they strive for, and it was made possible by the ruling of the Lawrence v. Texas case in

“Texas v. United States was a federal court challenge to President Obama’s 2014 executive action on immigration.  On November 20, 2014, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued directives that both identified longstanding immigration enforcement priorities and directed federal officials to exercise their discretion on a case-by-case basis to defer removal of certain parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents in order to remain consistent with those priorities in light of limited enforcement resources.  Twenty-two states, four governors, and the Nevada Attorney General challenged the directives,

In recent years, Texas has sued the Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on these issues, arguing that the federal government infringed on the state’s rights (Satija). Under Abbott’s ninth proposed amendment, states officials would be able to overrule a federal law, making it easier to undermine the Constitution and enter uncharted grounds. While our current balance of powers doesn’t quite align with what America’s founding fathers envisioned, Abbott’s proposal could allot too much power to the states that could threaten our democracy.

Texas is one of the most powerful states in the union. Texas seems to thrive when other states are going under. Maybe the writers of the New Texas Constitution got it right. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.

Another even more alarming problem the Texas Constitution has, is the fragmented executive branch. The governor doesn’t have control over other states authorities, instead, he shares authority with them. The governor’s powers are limited.

Central to this discussion are the twin dynamics - the yin and yang - of fundamental constitutional revision and the accumulation of piecemeal changes. Attempts at constitutional revision usually occur during extraordinary times, when the nature of the existing political system is thrown into doubt. Despite the tumult that inspires their work during such times, constitutional designers never completely rewrite the constitution with which they start. Fundamental and piecemeal changes as well as carry-over from previous constitutions are clearly evident in the seven constitutions under which Texas has been governed.

According to Texas Politics-The Constitution, the Texas Constitution creates something that is called a Plural Executive which is a system of authority in which most statewide executive officeholders are elected independently of the governor. This spreads the executive power among multiple elected offices and it fragments the executive branch of government and prevents the power over the executive branch to be centralized over one individual or office. Another strong point in which the United States Constitution and Texas Constitution differ is the concern of the chief executive’s power to veto the bills passed by the legislature. The Texas Constitution allows something that is called the line-item veto which gives the governor the power to reject certain parts of a bill without having to reject the entire thing. According to the United States Constitution, they rule the line-item veto to be unconstitutional. They argue that it violates the separation of powers between the legislative branch and the executive branches. The Texas Constitution allowing the line-item veto goes on to show a liking for limited government and limited spending even if it means giving the governor a power that the rest of the Texas Constitution was built trying to

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.

Problems with the Texas judiciary are many – from lack of a coherent court structure to overlapping jurisdictions, the process of judicial selection, the lack of requirements to be a judge, partisan-based elections, and the resulting long ballots, straight-ticket voting or voting simply because of a familiar name. Many judges face no opposition in the elections and substantial campaign contributions earn the judges their place on the bench. There is no recusal policy to intervene in the courtroom when a judge is deciding the verdict for a contributor‟s case. Minorities and women are underrepresented. Texas has many problems with the current judicial system, but there are also unadopted solutions for each and everyone.

The Texas Attorney General, Luther Strange, states that " the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling is now the law of the land. Short of the passage of a constitutional amendment protecting marriage as between one man and one woman, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say. " This shows whatever the verdict of the Judicial branch is, the verdict needs to be followed as it is now the ruling in America. The Governor of Ohio also stated that "I've said all along that when the Court makes a decision, we abide by the law of the land, And they made their determination and—just move on. It doesn't mean I'm not disappointed, I am, but the decision has been made."

Whether Gregory Johnson burning of the American Flag is considered expressive speech thus allowing him to challenge his conviction under the First Amendment freedom of speech.

As humans have to learn how to tolerate others diversity. It is important to accept others no matter how crazy it may sound to you. The lottery was about a small village that had a certain way of things and did the “lottery” every year, meaning you would pieces of paper and sorry not sorry but if you had a dot you were gonna get stoned by your friends and family and people you knew on a personal level. Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion is about how people are getting kinda defensive about how others treat the flag. The Wife’s Story is about a family whom in the beginning we are lead to believe they are just a normal family but we soon realize they're not so normal after all. “The lottery”, “Texas v. Johnson Majority Opinion,” both support