The Case Of Ninth Circuit Court

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

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

The Bill of Rights offers many protections, that without it, America would be lacking in basic human rights. In particular, the Ninth Amendment offers a vast amount of protections that other amendments cannot. Essentially, the Ninth Amendment states that Americans rights are not limited to those in the Constitution. In Roe V. Wade, a case tried before the Supreme Court, the Ninth Amendment assisted in sparing the rights of an average citizen named Norma L. McCorvey.

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

Thomas Jefferson was commenting that the Bill of Rights from governmental. Both the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution had more purpose; The Bill of Rights was meant to give citizens of the U.S. promising freedom to rely on. The Constitution set terms for the U.S. to abide by. The Constitution was established for the people and was a social contract; it was an agreement between the government and society to protect the nation’s deserved rights and liberties. The Bill of Rights was included in the Constitution; it is the first ten amendments which were included to guarantee personal rights. One interesting amendment that has tested numerous times through the Supreme Court is the Eighth Amendment: no cruel or unusual punishment, it definitely changed America’s on what punishment is considered cruel and unusual.

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

The 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Ratified on September 5, 1789, James Madison introduced this Amendment to the House of Representatives due to the fact he felt that the eight preceding Amendments dealt with how the Federal Government could exercise its powers. Varying from the prior eight Amendments, the Ninth Amendment was focused on the importance of enumerable rights of the American citizens.

The Supreme Court is the courtroom where all the legal cases dealing with congress or the constitution go to get a final decision. The Court is currently composed of a chief justice, eight associate justices, and nine officers. Their main goal as members of the Supreme Court is to make sure everything and anything abides by the constitution. It has many powers when it comes to law and especially the constitution, but it is not overly powerful due to the other two branches of the government. Checks and balances helps keep their powers level and just as important as the executive and legislative branch powers. The Court has the ability to remove a law or refute anything that violates the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, on average, receives around 7,000-8,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari every term. The Court grants and hears oral arguments for eighty cases. One case specifically was Printz v. United States. This case focused on dealing with background checks when purchasing a firearm. Jay Printz deemed the provisions to the Brady Bill unconstitutional, decided to take it to the District Courts and eventually the case ended up in the Supreme Court, where Stephen P. Halbrook fought and won the case based on a five to four ruling in favor of Printz.

In the case of Kyllo v. United States, I believe that the federal government did not exceed boundaries set by the Fourth Amendment. Conducting basic surveillance of the home with a basic thermal imager, Kyllo’s illegal activities were inferred using common patterns associated with indoor marijuana growth, and this information was used to obtain a search warrant. Although agents used extrasensory technology to view the normally invisible heat radiating from the home, their actions did not infringe upon Kyllo’s rights. All of the information used in obtaining the search warrant was gained from the exterior of the house, not through an unconstitutional search. However unorthodox the methods may have been, they did not constitute a violation.

For this circumstance, William Marbury, a Federalist and a "midnight game plan" of President John Adams, did not get his reward from the new Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. All around, the outcome of Marbury versus Madison was a great deal more huge than anybody in 1803 would have thought. Marbury asked for that the Supreme Court issue a "writ of mandamus" obliging Madison to pass on his reward.

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

In 1975, the United State Supreme Court held that state law could provide students a property interest in their education, but forty years have passed and courts remain uncertain of when such an interest exists. In Goss v. Lopez, the United States Supreme Court extended due process protections to a group of high school students in Ohio. The Court determined that Ohio state law provided the high school students a property interest in their continued enrollment at the school, and that such an interest was protected under the due process clause. The Goss decision came during a time when a due process revolution was happening in the United States. During this revolution, the Supreme Court recognized many new property interests in government benefits as the basis for due process claims. Since Goss, many students have brought due process claims against their schools, but lower courts have struggled to answer the question of when a student’s interest in education rises to the level of a property interest under Goss.

Supreme Court case of 1824. The issue was federal power to regulate interstate commerce. The case was about how Aaron Ogden had a license from the state of New York to run steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons had the licence but from the federal government to run steamboats in the same area. But a NY court ruled that Gibbons had to stop running his boats but Ogden could continue to operate his boats. So, Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. Gibbons argued that the commerce clause of the Constitution gave Congress exclusive right to regulate business between states. The decision was that the court sai that the State of New York law did not apply because the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Court

In this instant appeal, Mr. Shoemaker asserts that the circuit court erred by imposing an improper purge provision after finding him to be in contempt, and that the circuit court erred in finding that Mr. Shoemaker would be liable for alimony payments in accordance with the parties’ original separation agreement. We shall address both of these arguments in turn.

What are some of the factors that a president should consider as he presents his nominations for Senate confirmation?